The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly: Visiting Clerk

Mr Speaker: Members will note that we have a new Clerk at Table today. Mr André Gagnon is Deputy Principal Clerk of the Canadian Parliament, and he is here today to assist with the training of our Clerks. As Members will know, it is traditional, when a senior Clerk visits another Parliament on duty, that he or she is invited to assist at Table. I am delighted to have the help of such a distinguished Commonwealth colleague.

Members: Hear, hear.

Planning (Compensation, Etc.) Bill Further Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: As no amendments have been tabled, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the seven clauses of the Bill, followed by the three schedules and the long title.
Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Countryside and Rights of Way Law (ASSIs)

Ms Jane Morrice: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of the Environment to note the enactment of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and calls for equivalent protection to be extended to areas of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland.
In moving the motion, I think it would be worthwhile to explain how this came to be the subject of the debate. It is a perfect example of how the system – the devolved Assembly, the legislative procedure, and the lobbying process — is operating.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
In November last year, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) wrote to its 10,000 members asking them to write to their Assembly Members and voice their concerns about the loss of our rich natural heritage. They are calling on us, as Assembly Members, to do something to update the law in Northern Ireland, which is 15 years out of date.
The RSPB and other environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, Conservation Volunteers and the World Wildlife Fund, have been working on this issue for some time. They have been campaigning and lobbying to get the law passed because they are concerned about the neglect of the wildlife and habitats in our countryside.
Wildlife, so familiar to us in recent times, is now in steep decline and is in danger of disappearing. I am not exaggerating. Can anyone remember the last time they saw a hare running through the fields? The common corncrake is no longer a regular breeding bird in Northern Ireland. Wetlands, peatlands and bogs are being lost at an alarming rate. The wildlife that depends on those areas, such as the lapwing, the curlew and the oystercatcher, is also being lost. These birds frequented our shores and were a delight to our eyes, but they have declined by 50% over the last dozen years.
We share this small piece of land on the outskirts of the European continent with a wealth of birds, plants, and animals, many of which are quite rare and of international importance. However, I contend that we have not shared it fairly. Inch by inch and acre by acre, modern agriculture and built development are slowly encroaching on our most cherished natural resource. They are eating at its core and leaving behind a sprawling mess of concrete, tarmac and apartment blocks. Is that the legacy we want to leave to our children? I think not. Without proper protection, a walk in our countryside could become a faded sepia-tone memory, like a steam train ride, donkeys on the beach, or blackberry picking.
We still have an awful lot to be proud of. However, the need to protect what is left has never been greater than at the moment. Under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, our most important wildlife sites have been designated as areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs).
If you mention ASSIs to the uninitiated, they tend to think of people dressed in moon clothes picking up specimens and looking at them, but scientific interest is actually about botany, habitat, wildlife, birds, bees, plants and flora.
There are approximately 179 designated ASSIs in Northern Ireland. They represent approximately 6% of the countryside. I understand that this is relatively low compared to England and Wales, although perhaps not Scotland. The potential for increasing the number of designated sites in Northern Ireland is huge, because we have so much to be proud of. Designation provides fundamental protection for what are definitely internationally important sites. Strangford Lough and Lough Neagh are two well-known examples.
However, designation alone is not enough. Sites are vulnerable, and, in fact, the greatest threat is neglect. Neglect is a serious problem, but sites are also threatened by the development of land and changes in how land is used. In England and Wales it was recognised that the protection of these sites had to be respected, and following a period of consultation, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was passed there in November last year.
The motion calls specifically for equivalent measures to be extended to Northern Ireland. This is important, because it would mean that a number of measures, which have not yet managed to make the parliamentary passage across the Irish Sea, will be included. I want to go into some detail of the measures in what is known as the CROW Act (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000) that we would like to have extended to Northern Ireland.
Nature conservation orders, for example, which were never introduced in Northern Ireland, could be used as emergency measures to stop sites being damaged. Another very important element is third-party damage — damage to the area by outsiders — and I am sure we all know of examples of this.
One very interesting element of the CROW Act is the duty of care. This is about all public bodies — health, education, housing and so on — having a duty of care to regard and respect to ASSIs. It is vital that the Act be introduced here, and greater use should be made of positive management agreements, which is about doing something proactive to protect these sites. It could be anything — and there are certainly a great number of ideas out there — from providing litter bins and dog-litter bins to the protection of flora and fauna.
Another important measure is the ability to manage land outside and adjacent to the designated area, ensuring that it does not harm the site in any way. There is also a duty to further the conservation of these sites and their biodiversity.
In November this was the message that the RSPB asked its members to relate to their elected representatives. I started receiving letters from my constituents at the beginning of December. I would like to quote from a few of those letters. I will not name the writers, but they are obviously residents of Bangor, Donaghadee and Holywood. One person says
"Since coming here to live 13 years ago, we have both found that Northern Ireland wildlife — particularly its bird population — a constant source of delight. We ask you to press for time to be made in the Assembly’s legislative timetable for a measure which would continue to afford the wildlife here the protection it merits."
Another person writes
"As one of the Assembly Members for North Down, you will be well aware of the deep concern felt by many people in this area at the creeping development which is eating more and more into the Northern Ireland countryside"
That is a very important point raised by one of my constituents — the erosion of the green belt. Another very interesting point was this:
"Such a measure would not be contentious and would at least show the outside world that politicians on all sides of the Assembly can at least agree on one thing that will benefit all sections of the community. The quality of our countryside is one thing we are all agreed upon and a better protected environment would be a big selling point to the outside firms coming into the area."
Finally, I have a letter from a former biology teacher at Regent House, Mrs Pat Heatley, who said she used to take secondary school pupils to Ballymacormick Point to look at specimens in the rock pools. The rock pools are now virtually sanded over because the groynes have been misplaced and the sand has built up. Mrs Heatley is very disappointed at what has been happening and is calling for help. These letters speak for themselves and show just how much pressure is on us to do something about the matter.
Not being an expert on the subject, I wrote to the Environment Committee asking them to explore the situation. Eventually — after the Christmas break and with more letters coming in —I decided that the best option would be to put a motion to the Assembly. This is a devolved matter and it is a specific legislative request entirely within the competence of the House. The motion was prepared and sent to the Assembly’s Business Office at the start of last week. Meanwhile, I wrote to my constituents letting them know to watch out for the motion coming to the Floor of the House within four to six weeks. It was a surprise to all of us to learn that within seven days of this motion being put it was introduced and appears at the top of the agenda today.
This is an example of how the system is working. One of my correspondents said simply
"I realise that the recently announced legislative programme for the Assembly will keep MLAs extremely busy. I wish you luck in your part in the normalisation of political life in Northern Ireland."
That is exactly what we are doing today — taking part in the normalisation of political life in Northern Ireland. The system works; long live the system.

Sir John Gorman: After calling the Chairperson of the Environment Committee I shall have to consider how we should spend the rest of the morning in view of the large number of Members who wish to participate in this important debate.

Rev William McCrea: I thank Jane Morrice and her Colleague for bringing the motion before the House. The Women’s Coalition has no members on my Committee, where the issue is being dealt with. Therefore I am delighted that they have brought the matter to the attention of the House. I will try, in the short time available to me, to inform the House of the progress already made on this important issue by the Committee. The debate is proof that the environment is viewed as an increasingly important topic by the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives. In the past, many of these important issues seem to have been buried under direct rule. Today we have an opportunity to debate them openly and to demand that action be taken.
The debate will not only highlight problems in the environment, but it will seek to press the Minister and his Department into action. Under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, the Department of the Environment is required to declare as an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) any stretch of land that requires special protection because of its flora, fauna or physical features. However, in practice ASSI declaration is confined to those sites with the highest degree of scientific value. To date, 179 ASSIs have been declared in Northern Ireland. As Jane Morrice said, these cover more than 6% of the total land area of the Province.
Although most ASSIs have remained in good condition following declaration, the Department of the Environment acknowledged to my Committee, in a letter dated 11 December 2000, that there are a number of weaknesses in the present ASSI legislation. It acknowledged that improvements are needed to ensure that sites are adequately protected to satisfy EC Directives and to enable expenditure to be targeted to achieve conservation benefits. Unfortunately, the weaknesses in the legislation have been identified for some considerable time. The fact that we are operating under out-of-date legislation causes us concern, and that situation must change.
I have a reliable report, issued by BirdLife International, which states that many of Northern Ireland’s ASSIs have been damaged or neglected. It draws attention to some key concerns that it has identified — the need for legislation to strengthen the site safeguard system; the need for urgent progress towards the monitoring and management of sites, including restoration; and the need for additional resources to address these issues.
The enactment of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act provides a range of measures that will enhance and protect the sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) in England and Wales. Unfortunately, the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland; it only applies to England and Wales. Therein lie some of the difficulties. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act imposes a statutory duty on public bodies to manage SSSIs in England and Wales to conserve and enhance their value. It gives English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales the power to impose management schemes on owners of SSSIs. They can enforce them, as opposed to simply preventing damaging operations. There will be more serious and wide-ranging penalties for damaging SSSIs.
Given the CROW Act in England and Wales, the Department of the Environment’s stated concern and the recommendation to approve ASSI legislation presented to the Government by a Northern Ireland biodiversity group in October 2000, the Department has informed our Committee that it is considering options to strengthen existing ASSI legislation.
It is unacceptable that we have fallen behind the rest of the UK, and I have no doubt that through the debate we will draw the Minister’s attention to the urgent and necessary legislation that is needed. The Minister has said that he wishes to consult widely on any proposal for change in legislation with representatives of farmers, landowners, fish interests, voluntary conservation bodies, recreation and tourist bodies, district councils, et cetera.

Sir John Gorman: Mr McCrea, will you be bringing your remarks to an end shortly?

Rev William McCrea: Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I ask the Minister not to lengthen the period of consultation. We need to bring our legislation into line with the rest of the UK.
Finally, despite a 14% increase in the Department’s overall budget for 2001-02 and a 27% increase for the Environment and Heritage Service, the specific bid for £3·6 million for important work on environmental programmes such as landscape protection and nature conservation was not met in the Budget. I trust that the Minister will press for this need — and the finances necessary to make a difference — to be met by the Administration.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I support the motion. Areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) are of vital importance to us for a number of reasons and deserve stringent legislation to protect them from destruction or neglect.
Northern Ireland is just beginning to develop its potential as a tourist destination. It is important to preserve the natural and environmental resource of our landscape so as to promote a beautiful place to visit. We must see our landscape, habitats and wildlife as assets to tourism and our unspoilt countryside as a marketable resource. For ourselves, it is important to be able to enjoy the unique surroundings that we are lucky enough to have virtually on our doorstep.
An Ulster marketing survey in 1997 showed that 60% of the population regarded the quality of the countryside as one of the most important aspects of the quality of life in Northern Ireland. It is a shame, then, that these ASSIs have been damaged, intentionally or through neglect. We have the opportunity to give these sites the legislative protection they urgently need before irreparable damage is done. Biodiversity can be lost very quickly, and cannot be recreated.
The sites were designated, as has already been said, under 1985 legislation. With the passing of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 across the water, our laws have fallen even further behind. We should be striving to meet EC Directive standards and, where possible, surpass them.
I would like to highlight a few points that are worthy of serious consideration. The management of these sites must involve a range of partnerships — all those who have an interest in the protection of the environment. The Minister of the Environment has said that he will consult widely with farmers’ representatives, landowners, recreation and tourism bodies and district councils. I hope that this spirit of partnership will be a common thread through all issues concerning the management of these sites.
I am also concerned that any site’s condition should be systematically monitored, so that far more data can be gathered about the sites — particularly for poorly known species. More surveys should be conducted of habitats such as rivers, unimproved grasslands, and the coast.
Finally, it is important that any legislation we introduce has swift and robust enforcement procedures when damage does occur. We need suitable deterrents for those who would recklessly endanger valuable habitats.
Naturally the measures outlined — management of ASSIs, further surveys and data collection, enforcement and legislation — will need greater resources than has previously been the case. I hope that the Minister will heed the concerns expressed inside and outside the Chamber, and will make the protection of our natural heritage a priority for his Department.

Sir John Gorman: The timetable for this debate is roughly two hours, including the speech by the Minister and the winding-up speech by Ms Morrice. Therefore five minutes will be set aside for each of the other 16 Members.

Mrs Joan Carson: I welcome the debate, but I must ask Members not to welcome too effusively the proposals that have been brought forward in the rest of the UK.
I want to paint a little bit of the background to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which came onto the statute books on 30 November 2000 for England and Wales. The Act was a direct result of Michael Meacher’s declaration on 8 March 1999 of new Labour’s commitment to give people greater freedom to explore the countryside. Without more precise information to the public this Act could turn out to be a trespasser’s charter. The Labour Government are hailing the right to roam as a democratisation of the countryside. However, they have to accept that the rights of the many must not prejudice the rights of the few.
The Countryside Agency in England and the Countryside Council for Wales, which have responsibility for implementing the Act, admit that a massive education programme is required to understand it. The agencies also have what they call "the minor problem of funding". The Countryside and Rights of Way Act includes protection for ASSIs and areas of outstanding natural beauty, with tough penalties for owners or occupiers damaging the sites. Some related problems were resolved during the Act’s passage at Westminster. For example, tougher action will be taken against the use of illegal vehicles such as quad bikes in the countryside. That is a problem that is occurring here. Landowners were pleased that they were no longer liable for accidents involving natural land features.
Unfortunately many issues remain unresolved, including the definition and enforcement of trespass, the definition of the terms "moor", "heathland", "down", "mountain" and also the problem of communication about the Act and enforcement of the Act. The issues of wardening and policing the Act remain to be sorted out too, and there is also the big problem of funding.
The Labour Government have been so eager to implement one of their manifesto promises that the Act in GB has become law with incomplete research, misunderstandings and without any thought as to the minutiae of how to make it work. It is not enough for the proposers of the motion — and we are all keen to preserve our countryside — to ask the Minister of the Environment to note parts of the enactment covering ASSIs. Positive management and tougher penalties mentioned in the Act are adequate, but in Northern Ireland we need to ensure that Environment and Heritage Service personnel will be deployed in sufficient numbers to inspect sites on a systematic basis to ensure the protection of these sites. It is no use designating sites without some form of policing and protection.
In Northern Ireland, we have the opportunity to avoid the mistakes that have been made in England and Wales before we put anything on our statute books. I await with interest the Department of the Environment’s proposals and consultation with other bodies. The Assembly can then decide if those proposals are competent for the protection of our areas of outstanding natural beauty and special scientific interest. We can then take the appropriate action to make firm legislation to preserve our threatened sites.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I would like to see the legislation brought up to date. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill should be given priority in order to bring the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 up to date.
In south Down, you will find the eastern Mournes, Murlough, Carlingford, Rostrevor woods, the Quoile and Strangford. There are many instances of these sites being damaged, or suffering neglect due to the lack of more positive measures for their protection. As they are so important to our present and future enjoyment of wildlife and the environment and for the tourist industry, I urge all Members to support the motion and ask that legislation be brought up to the same standard as that in the rest of Ireland.
The Burren area in County Clare, for example, is recognised worldwide as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The wildlife there — and the whole area — are protected under that Government’s legislation.
If one wanders around our very important sites, one can see that wildlife has been reduced to an appalling standard. As the proposer said, the hare has totally disappeared from the scene, together with a lot of other wildlife.
Finally, the old song asked "Where have all the flowers gone?" I ask "Where has all the wildlife gone?" Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr David Ford: I support the motion and commend Jane Morrice for bringing it forward. I also commend the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and its members for the extremely effective lobbying operation, which has been carried out on many of us. I knew, from Eileen Bell, how many letters were being sent out in North Down, as I am sure you did also, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can assure Jane Morrice and you that a similar number have been issued to Members in South Antrim. I hope they have received a positive response from the six of us.
It has already been said that we, in Northern Ireland, are dependent on legislation dating from 1985. We are not only 15 years behind; we are rather more than a legislative cycle behind. This is because the 1985 legislation, which applied to us, was already out of date by the standards of the English and Welsh legislation before the introduction of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CROW) last year. There is a serious need to ensure that we update that legislation. I do not care whether Mick Murphy wants the legislation to be to the same standard as the rest of Ireland or if other Members want it to be to the same standard as the rest of the UK. It is time that Northern Ireland’s environment was protected to the highest standards in Europe.
The problems have been well highlighted. I would like to look at the responsibilities of the Department and the opportunities it now has. Prior to devolution, the DOE was the "Department of Everything". That meant that it was the department of polluters like the Roads Service and Water Service, as well as those who policed that pollution. We now have a great opportunity within the new structure because although small in terms of budget and staffing, the Department of the Environment is very significant in terms of its impact on policy across all the other Departments, and on the future of the people and the environment of Northern Ireland.
The Department must take its responsibility seriously and take the lead on, for example, the biodiversity strategy. Related issues include ASSIs, which are the topic of this debate, and planning policies, in relation to which the Department needs to be more proactive on environmental issues. The conservation of individual species is another important issue, and reference was made earlier to the corncrake and the Irish hare. The case of the corncrake is a classic example of a matter on which the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) has finally got its act together. The EHS, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and organisations such as the RSPB, took action just in time to preside over the last surviving corncrakes on the mainland of Northern Ireland. The number of corncrakes has been reduced to a small population in Donegal with, perhaps, a few survivors on Rathlin Island, if we are lucky.
Members will be astounded, as was the Environment Committee, to learn that, although the Irish hare is a protected species, the EHS still licenses the catching of hares for coursing. Coursing is now "supposedly" welfare friendly — I deliberately enclose the word "supposedly" in quotation marks — and the hares are chased by muzzled greyhounds. The hares are still injured by the hounds and captured in a way that must create a degree of trauma, which casts great doubt over whether they will be able to breed in future, even when released back into the wild. The Department has, so far, failed to explain its position to the Committee, and it must do so.
This year a bizarre situation arose in which hares, which had been caught on Rathlin Island, were not allowed to be released back to the island, because the EHS were not sure which two hares came from Rathlin. Therefore biodiversity on Rathlin Island is suffering because licensing is being permitted by the DOE. The Department should have a clear focus on its duties in the field of biodiversity, but there has been a considerable degree of confusion in its behaviour. Meanwhile, some designated ASSIs are being lost and, in many cases, damaged. In addition, new designations, which were being made quite speedily some years ago, are now taking much longer.
No doubt, the Minister, within his brief prepared by the Civil Service, will have answers to some of these points. He will tell us about the shortage of staff, the need to upgrade the legislation, his hope that there will be movement in the next year or two, and the additional resources, which he has obtained from the Department of Finance and Personnel. Will he do something radical and dynamic — will he tear up that brief? Will he stand up and give us a real commitment to instituting consultation? The papers will soon be ready for consultation. Will he get on with that process and make a commitment that, as soon as the consultation is complete, there will be legislation immediately? Will he go to the Executive and tell them that biodiversity is important and that his Department has to take the lead on that? And will he come back to the Assembly with legislation, rather than a mere promise, at the earliest possible date?

Mr Cedric Wilson: I support most of the comments made by Ms Morrice. I am going to focus specifically on the north Down and Strangford Lough areas. Ms Morrice referred justly to some of the difficulties that exist in her area of north Down. At the recent launch of the ‘North Down and Ards Area Consultation Document 2015’, a senior planning officer described Strangford Lough and the Ards Peninsula as "the undiscovered jewel". He highlighted the potential for the future development of tourism in the area for those who have not yet discovered the beauty of Strangford Lough. He went on to say that they had to take great care when looking at the future development of the area to avoid killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
When elected Members were invited to comment upon the consultation process I took the opportunity to say that while the goose may be still alive, it has certainly been well plucked and continues to be denuded on a daily basis. The sad fact is that the consultation document for north Down and Ards is really a nonsense. From Portaferry to Donaghadee, from Portaferry to Greyabbey and to Newtownards, and from Comber down to Strangford village itself, wholesale and uncontrolled development is at this moment destroying the beauty of the Strangford area. I see little sense in designating areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) or areas of outstanding scenic beauty in Northern Ireland at the moment. Despite the current consultation process which allows elected representatives to plan the protection of our environment, disgraceful planning decisions are being made in many areas.
It amounts to wholesale destruction of the environment, under the authority and with the permission of the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service. Again, the fact that large housing schemes are currently being approved from Portaferry up the entire length and on both sides of the peninsula makes a nonsense of the consultation process. The single largest development of any area in Northern Ireland is under way in the village of Ballyhalbert. It will provide 1,300 dwellings.
How are the Department of the Environment’s Planning Service and Roads Service going to protect the very delicate nature and balance of the environment in Stranford Lough, if they continue to allow self-certification by builders? This problem is giving rise to the wholesale conversion of caravan parks to large-scale housing developments throughout the Province. This is totally out of kilter with the aims of the consultation process and will destroy any opportunity we have to protect the environment.
This is not a matter of personal interest. I am not saying "We need more housing, but not in my backyard." I want proper thought given to development, and decisions to be taken that will have the least impact on the environment; decisions that will be sustainable.
In addition to our problem of a delicate roads infrastructure which cannot deal with this increase, we face the difficulty of raw sewage being pumped out onto the beaches. Because of the increase in development, sewage is issuing from Donaghadee and towns along that part of the coast and polluting the waters of Strangford Lough and the sea in areas like Greyabbey.
There should be a moratorium on major housing schemes, particularly in the Strangford area, until consultation has taken place and the Planning Service has taken on board the very real concerns of the residents of north Down and the Strangford area.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I will support any motion seeking to press for the enhancement and protection of our countryside where many people enjoy leisure time. Where areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) are properly managed in agreement with landowners, the designation is a very appropriate way in which to manage our natural heritage.
In my constituency of East Londonderry, various areas are designated ASSIs — Magilligan, the Bann estuary, Lough Foyle and Banagher Glen are examples. The Department of the Environment has worked with the landowners in these areas to develop a management plan or to purchase, as appropriate, certain portions of land. These areas are of great importance to wildlife, and none more so than the area nearest to my home, Banagher Glen, which is one of the oldest naturally regenerated woodlands in the whole of Ireland. The site is virtually unusable for farming and is inaccessible.
The designation of Banagher Glen as an ASSI did not impact greatly on the landowners, and they were happy to participate in the scheme. My only proviso concerns access. Over the years the Department of the Environment and other Government agencies have dragged their feet in giving the public access to Banagher Glen. I speak of an area that I know well, and there are probably many other such areas around the Province where the same applies. Therefore, I ask that before any privately owned land is designated as an ASSI, Government agencies promote, encourage and strengthen these designations.
Are landowners protected if someone proceeds onto their land, which is either a designated ASSI or provides access to an ASSI? If someone is injured, are the landowners or their insurers responsible for any claims? Will the Department of the Environment legislate to ensure that injured persons are covered by the Department or by some authority or scheme? Under any new legislation landowners must be protected from any liability for damages claimed by someone who is injured on their property. Under a management agreement landowners must be adequately compensated for their land, and they should receive proper recompense for loss of income.
We must also have adequate controls on third-party issues relating to damage caused by people who enjoy these ASSIs and who may even police them. Some form of compensation for damage must be written into any proposed legislation.
The questions I have raised must be properly answered before I can give wholehearted support to further legislation to protect ASSIs. I appreciate fully the wealth of plant life and wildlife in these areas, and most of the points made by the proposer are sound and rational. If my points can be adequately addressed, I will welcome such legislation.

Mr Jim Wilson: Although I will not be able to support the motion, and I will outline my reasons, I support much of the sentiment behind it. I commend the Women’s Coalition for tabling the motion for it is time we debated environmental protection and it is time to stop the rot.
We are being invited to consider an Act of Parliament whose application is confined to England and Wales. We can and will make our own decisions on whether we replicate any of it with legislation in Northern Ireland.
I believe firmly that we need to do much more to protect the rural environment and the wildlife habitat, but I also believe that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act should not be cloned for this process.
It is a deeply flawed piece of legislation, and it received a mixed reception in rural areas. It had a stormy passage through Parliament before the Government’s urban majority forced it through. One of its main flaws was to put the two rather different and vexed issues of access to the countryside and protection of the countryside together in the same legislation. The framers of the Bill failed to understand how stewardship of the countryside — a largely voluntary and unrewarded activity — works.
Northern Ireland’s land ownership structure is different from England’s. Moreover, the proportion of cultivated land is higher here, although that could be reduced gradually in a way that could help farmers diversify and contribute to repairing some of the extensive damage already done to our wildlife habitat.
While the Department of the Environment has guidelines and regulations that appear to protect the natural environment, those are honoured much more in the breach than in the observance. While environmental protection standards in the rest of the UK are undemanding compared with those of many of our European neighbours, the situation is even more lax in Northern Ireland. Visitors to Northern Ireland who have an interest in these matters are frequently appalled by what is permitted.
I was told recently that more planning applications for new single rural dwellings are given in Northern Ireland each year than in the whole of England. If this is true, it is no wonder that our countryside is disappearing so rapidly. With ASSIs, it appears that exceptions are the rule. Environmentally damaging activities occur frequently, with little or no redress.
The Planning Service lives in fear of what appear to be battalions of sharp lawyers retained by developers to bully the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC). The problem stems from a presumption in favour of development. That lies at the heart of the regulations.
If we are serious about protecting our environment then I urge the Minister, as a matter of urgency, to revise the planning regulations so that the balance tilts heavily towards the conservation of wildlife habitat and away from what appears to be almost indiscriminate development.
Tourism is an industry that should have considerable growth potential in Northern Ireland. If we continue in this way there will be no untarnished landscape left for tourists to enjoy.
Members know that I am considerably interested in angling. While improving the habitat for fish in our river system falls outside the scope of the debate, the issue also requires urgent and serious consideration if we are to address environmental issues properly.
Monumentally bad decisions by the Planning Service during direct rule have done serious damage to our countryside. I say "monumentally" because I could show examples of bad planning monuments in the countryside where I live. They are not tourist attractions. A carbon copy of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will not bring about the change needed. However, change there must be, as the Minister, MrFoster, knows. I appeal to him not to consider the Countryside and Rights of Way Act as a solution to Northern Ireland’s problems and seek to implement it here.

Mr Arthur Doherty: I recommend support for the motion, particularly since it seeks to augment the work already set in motion by the Environment Committee. As the Chairperson said, the Committee has actively engaged with the Department on this matter since November, when I drew attention to concerns expressed by members of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and others.
Support for the motion should not be taken as criticism of the Department or of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS). Much good work is already being done and if time allowed I could provide some details. However, I am sure the Minister will not miss the opportunity to reassure us of the Department’s good intentions.
The motion is timely. The Department has acknowledged that there are a number of weaknesses in the present ASSI legislation, but it has yet to establish a firm, timetabled action plan. In its response to the Environment Committee’s initial enquiries, the Department said that it intended to begin the ASSI consultation process "in the near future". The motion may encourage the development of a more precise programme in the very near future.
The motion refers specifically to areas of special scientific interest, but the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 goes much further than that. It is worth reflecting on the intentions and consequences of the Act. In a press release dated 13 June 2000, the UK Environment Minister said
"We want AONBs to be recognised for their national importance and the enjoyment they provide for many visitors. We must also ensure the full involvement of local people, those who live and work in the Areas or manage the land. These measures will improve the conservation and management of AONBs, boosting their role as part of our living countryside. We will continue to ensure that Government funding is available to work alongside local authorities in managing AONBs in partnership."
We should note the reference to the importance of partnership in the development of management. We should also note the promise of Government funding. Mr Meacher referred to the almost threefold increase in funding over three years, from £2·1 million to £5·9 million. Can our Minister give an equivalent guarantee that adequate funding will be available?
The legislation that is necessary to ensure that desired objectives are met must strike a balance between several competing rights and responsibilities. I have the privilege of living in Magilligan on the north coast. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty with a number of coastal and highland ASSIs. I appreciate the need for legislation to protect sensitive habitats and rights of access, and to ensure effective action against anyone who abuses or damages protected areas. However, we must remember that all land will be in public or — more likely — private ownership and that, therefore, legislation must also protect the rights of landowners to proper use of their land.
The farming community has many concerns that require our sympathetic consideration. Some of those concerns were expressed last July in the Ulster Farmers’ Union’s comprehensive reply to the European Commission on the subject of environmental liability. Paragraph 23 of its response urged the Commission to
"ensure that the Natura 2000 sites are designated and established prior to the implementation of an environmental liability regime. It would be unacceptable to impose a liability scheme dealing with damage to biodiversity while the sites are still in the process of being proposed and agreed."
I am sure that the Minister will take account of such concerns and that he will agree to take a staged approach to amending legislation to ensure that similar anomalies do not occur. That would be in accord with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which has "rural proofed" policy, notwithstanding some of the reservations that have been expressed. That point was made by Ewen Cameron, chairman of the Countryside Agency in a speech delivered on 18 January 2000. He warned that both local and central government must take greater account of the needs of rural areas and populations when drawing up policies:
"For too long, the Departments of State have developed their policies and initiatives from the perspective of the majority who live in towns. It is extremely heartening that the Government…is committing itself to encouraging a more inclusive approach. By working together, across the political spectrum, to improve the understanding of rural problems and opportunities, I am certain we can make a long-term difference to those who live and work in the countryside, as well as those who visit."

Mr Jim Wells: I support the motion. We are extremely fortunate to have some of the jewels of United Kingdom wildlife in the Province. Rathlin Island is an outstanding area for its seabird colonies, maritime heathland and high density of nesting birds of prey. Strangford Lough, some of which lies in my own constituency is internationally important for several species of waterfowl, including the brent goose and knot. Of course, no debate would be complete without a mention of west Tyrone and the raised bogs in the Fairy Water area near Omagh. We have some outstanding habitats, and they are in urgent need of protection and conservation.
I was heavily involved in the consultation process on the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and on the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Indeed, I hold the dubious distinction of having suffered the heaviest defeat ever inflicted at Stormont when I moved an amendment to that legislation, which lost by 56 votes to one. Things are getting better. In those days I was a voice in the wilderness. That is why it is so encouraging today to hear so many people supporting what I was saying 15 to 16 years ago.
What appals me is that the legislation giving the Department power to designate areas of special scientific interest (ASSI) came in 15 years ago, and we have still not completed the designation of all potential ASSIs in Northern Ireland. One hundred and seventy-nine have been designated, but at least another 50 are in the pipeline. I have to ask why it has taken 15 years and we still have not completed the process. There is absolutely no protection for habitats that are not declared ASSIs.
An enormous amount of damage is going on throughout the countryside and it is a worrying situation. I agree with Mr Jim Wilson when he says that we should not automatically duplicate the CROW Bill by simply tweaking it to suit the Northern Ireland situation. If he wants stronger legislation, then I say "Hear, hear" to that. I guarantee that I will be 100% behind even stronger legislation if that is the basis of his opposition.
We must have something on the table urgently. I ask the Minister to unshackle himself from his minders in the Department. I ask him to stand up here today and say "I am taking this matter by the throat, and I am bringing forward this legislation immediately so it can be discussed and debated by this House, the Committee and the general public." I do not know about other hon Members, but I have received a large number of letters from individuals throughout south Down — from some of the most surprising sources, I must say — who are deeply concerned about this issue and want us to act now. This is one of those measures where we, as an Assembly, can act in unison and come forward with something that all of the public will agree with.
I am deeply concerned that the present legislation is entirely negative in character when it comes to ASSIs. The Department tells individual landowners what they cannot do. There are good reasons for that, but I would like to see much more in the way of positive management agreements — a partnership — between landowners and the Department to protect these outstanding areas. I am also deeply concerned about the amount of third party damage to ASSIs throughout Northern Ireland.
How often have you driven down the roads in Counties Down and Armagh and seen small inter-drumlin wetlands being destroyed as a result of infilling by waste and rubble, and by other materials being dumped in these areas? The reality is that many of these sites do not, in their own right, have sufficient merit to be designated ASSIs, but taken together they are of inestimable importance to wildlife in Northern Ireland. One by one they are being ticked off as builders basically dump rubble and destroy them. That is a sad aspect of what is going on in Northern Ireland at present.
We must also introduce legislation that protects the wider countryside. ASSIs, even if they are all designated, protected and managed, will cover only 7% to 8% of the land surface of Northern Ireland. That still means that approximately 93% is left totally unprotected. We need to introduce policies that will protect the wider countryside. There are many species, such as the Irish hare, which will not be protected simply by the designation of ASSIs.
What would best come out of this debate would be for the Minister to give us a firm commitment on the date when the equivalent legislation to the CROW Bill will be tabled to the Environment Committee. We have raised this issue many times with the Department, and it has hidden behind words such as "We have plans to introduce". We want a date, and we want a date this morning. When will the matter come before the Assembly?

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Each of us can testify that this island is remarkably endowed with special conservation areas or areas of special scientific interest. Each of us can also testify to the level of interest. This is becoming a pressing issue. To some extent public opinion is in advance of the opinion of the Department and, thus far, the response of the Minister.
I urge support for the motion. I urge Members to consider the various ways in which we can promote the application of amending or new legislation to bring the Six Counties up to the same standards of protection as those enjoyed by other areas on this island or in Britain itself, or on offer through compliance with European Directives.
The issue is before us, and we must address the culture of complacency and lack of accountability in respect of this matter that has developed over the direct rule period. It has to be welcomed that the Environment Committee, of which I am a member, is already addressing this issue. The Minister will find that very strong representations will be made there. It is not beyond the Committee’s ability to devise its own legislation or its own legislative proposal on the matter.
Either way, it will have to come before the Assembly for action. This situation demands that remedial action be taken urgently. It is not as if experience elsewhere cannot be applied here; it is not as if the templates do not exist; it is a question of resources and of the necessary prioritisation.
There is a precedent of convergence of views and cross-party support. The only Act that the Nationalist Party got through the old Stormont Government was the Wild Birds Protection Act 1931. We should consider that as a very useful and welcome precedent and see what we can do for society today. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Ivan Davis: The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 was controversial when it was debated at Westminster. The Act, which comes into force at the end of this month, changes relationships between landowners and the public and, in particular, those who like to roam on open land.
The situation in Northern Ireland is not identical to that in England and Wales — where the Act applies. Northern Ireland’s land law has evolved in a different way from that in England and Wales. In the early part of the last century, many of the great landed estates in Ireland were broken up, and tenant farmers became the freehold owners of their lands.
Farms in Northern Ireland are mainly small, rural and family-owned. Although many farmers will rent land, this is usually done on an annual basis. In this context, the question of roaming over areas of mountain, moor, heath and down, as the English Act describes, does not apply in Northern Ireland in the same sense as it would in England and Wales.
The term "registered common land" is unknown in Northern Ireland and reflects a time in English history when certain areas were retained for the use of the people, in contrast to the rights of those who occupied the manor house.
At some stage the Assembly may have to examine the right-to-roam situation in Northern Ireland, but at this point I am not aware of any general feeling of public deprivation as regards rights over open land.
In my constituency — Lagan Valley — it is possible to roam in many areas of outstanding beauty. The Lagan Valley regional park is an open area that welcomes the public, and future development of the Lagan corridor will further enhance its amenities. The Belfast hills are an area of high scenic quality. The Dromara hills lie to the south, just outside my constituency. The Mourne Mountains lie further afield. The whole of Northern Ireland is blessed with excellent areas for walking and recreation. The public is reasonably relaxed about the current situation. If demand for a change in the law should grow, we should tread carefully so as not to damage the good relationships that currently exist between those who own the land and those who wish to ramble.
In 1999 the environmental policy division of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland issued a discussion paper on access to Northern Ireland’s countryside. The paper raised a number of questions about the future of access and asked for comments. It pointed out that the Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 placed responsibility for the care and maintenance of countryside access with district councils. Under the Order, councils were permitted to appoint a countryside officer, and many have done so. Many have prepared and are preparing an access strategy or countryside recreation strategy for their area.
In this context, the widest possible consultation should take place before any motion is put to the House to bring forward changes. There are many matters to be resolved. The question of occupiers’ liability is of great importance. The right of landlords to have protection for their livestock and crops must be to the forefront, and the possibility of damage to the environment must be monitored.
The second part of the motion refers to Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs). The CROW Act provides for greater protection of these sites to prevent damage, to provide positive management of the sites, and to enhance their status. In Northern Ireland, the Planning Service is responsible for the treatment of ASSIs. Present controls for ASSIs may be adequate, but the issue should be examined by the Planning Service when a full review of planning takes place.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. My reading of the motion is that it refers to the protection of ASSIs. The speeches made by the proposer and most other Members have been about the protection of ASSIs. Is it in order for the members of one party to talk about a matter which is not the subject of the motion (several of them at great length) — namely, the right to roam and access to the countryside? This is not referred to in the substance of the motion.

Sir John Gorman: I note your point. It might be wise for Members to adhere more strictly to the terms of the motion.

Mr P J Bradley: Mr Deputy Speaker, I note your previous comment and apologise at the outset. I cannot stick to that, because I will follow the same themes expressed by other Members who have concerns.
First, I want to confirm my full and absolute support for the protection of flora and fauna and the countryside’s physical features. However, I have concerns. Only yesterday, it was clearly stated in the House that animal diseases can be spread by pedestrians going from farm to farm. There is every reason to believe that that is a real possibility. Indeed, some farmers are still in the habit of providing disinfectant trays at the entrance to their farms for casual visitors. There is a widespread concern that must be addressed.
I fear that the Assembly is seeking to introduce legislation that will provide more rights to the general public than to landowners themselves. I own a small plot of land in an area of special scientific interest (ASSI). If Members think that they receive a lot of bumf from the Assembly about the Committees that they are on, they should see the correspondence that one receives about ASSIs. There are mountains of rules and regulations.
It has got to the stage where one can hardly look at the land, never mind go onto it. With that in mind, I would just say that the rules should be for everyone. If directives are laid down to protect an ASSI, the restrictions should apply to the landowners and public alike — there should be no difference. I am sure that the Committee and the Minister are fully aware of these points.

Sir John Gorman: Mr Bradley, may I interrupt for a moment. I have taken some advice on answering Mr Ford’s point, and I understand that the right of access and the right to roam are included in the Act referred to. It is therefore proper for those matters to be mentioned in the House.

Mr P J Bradley: I agree with Mrs Carson and Mr Douglas, who referred to the issues of access and trespass.
The Committee and Minister will have to take those matters on board in future — there is no doubt about that.
I often wonder what level of reciprocation those who so energetically promote access to the countryside have in mind. Do they foresee the day when farmers and rural residents will be permitted to walk unchallenged through the gardens and lawns of north Down, for example, to admire the beauty within? We have heard about natural beauty. Is it planned to allow a farmer just to walk through a garden because it has beauty? Is that all part of their intention for the future? My closing words to those who are drawing up the legislation are "Tread carefully."

Mr Oliver Gibson: First of all, I thank the proposer of the motion. Bearing in mind Mr Ford’s warning about ASSIs, I will use the term "special areas of conservation" (SACs), as designated by the European Directive. In June last year the Minister wisely introduced 23 of those, making a total of 43 such designated areas in Northern Ireland.
I have three simple points. First, a number of people have quite rightly highlighted the rights of the current owners of property and, as Mr Wells has pointed out, the negative approach of some of the former Executive legislation. There is now an opportunity to achieve co-operation — for those who own the property and the lands, and those who own the turbary, to join with the Department in a form of eco-management.
It is very important that we now move on from the negative attitudes of 15 to 20 years ago into a new era of assisting those who own the land to form a new partnership in eco-farming, using the environment as a proper resource asset. Not only is it then protected, but it is managed and controlled. Bearing in mind that this is an environmental heritage that is ours to protect, it is not only ours to share but ours to care. Therefore it is very important that the Minister take on board that it is a golden opportunity, as part of the consultation, to make sure that there is a partnership involved, and that it is not negative as in the "Thou shall not"s of the past.
My second point concerns the issue of being able to share with those on the outside who wish to use, view, and enhance their own professional education in, the habitat that we have, with its varieties of fauna and flora. That has to be managed so that there is not abuse. However, we live in an age of litigation — people have become quite skilled at it — so those who own and manage land have got to be protected. That has been a concern in other areas — not just in eco-tourism, but in ordinary tourism where the right of the owner is challenged.
One good measure that was introduced by the Department of Agriculture was community forestry. However, that hit the buffers. Even though many farmers were willing to join and restore the natural forestry that once existed here, it was community forestry and other people had the right of access. Therefore the danger of litigation to the landowners became a threat. That threat stopped community forestry almost before it began — it was a stillborn idea.
I have heard about the difficulties of concrete jungles and the great haciendas that are being built on the Ards Peninsula. May I refer you to the unspoilt beauty of West Tyrone. It is an objective of the Habitat Directive of Europe that raised bogs be treated as a priority. I advocate that Crannagh Bog, Tully Bog and Tonaghbeg Bog — a group of raised bogs designated as ASSIs — become SACs. I also suggest that the Fairy Water SAC be extended to bring in Lough Envagh, the waterhills around Envagh and Ernasculpath raised bogs.
West Tyrone is rich in raised bogs, but they are now becoming a rare and important asset. The landowners have been careful about that. Bearing in mind that the present landowners have been the best caretakers of much of that rich heritage in the environmental sphere, I, as other Members have done, warn the Minister that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is not necessarily the legislation to use. However, I am sure that the Minister and the Department have enough ingenuity to draft legislation that will preserve an excellent heritage that we have every right to be proud of.

Sir John Gorman: We are running short of time, so to give sufficient time to the Minister and the proposer, Ms Morrice, I will call just one more Member. I am sorry to disappoint two or three Members who wanted to speak, but we have run out of time.

Dr Ian Adamson: In appreciation of yesterday’s being as the Chinese New Year, may I say "Dor tse", which is Cantonese for "Thank you".

Mr Danny Kennedy: We will take your word for that.

Dr Ian Adamson: You can look it up.

Sir John Gorman: You speak Cantonese as well as your other languages.

Dr Ian Adamson: Yes, a little.
As an Irish peasant born and reared in Conlig, Co Down — near Jane Morrice’s Bangor — I have great pleasure in speaking on the motion from a cultural viewpoint.
The countryside, with its beauty, traditions and lore, was the inspiration of our finest poets — the Ulster Weaver poets of the 1790s and early 1800s, who have given us a unique heritage. They were educated in Latin and Greek and achieved a higher level of culture than any section of the peasantry in western Europe.
They were not merely writing in appreciation of Robert Burns, whom we celebrate this week, but they belong to a tradition which went back to Allan Ramsay and beyond, in Scotland. From my own family came Uncle Ned — Edward Sloan, the bard of Conlig — but the most widely acclaimed of the Ulster poets was James Orr of Ballycarry, which is near the Ulster Unionist Party’s Chief Whip’s residence.
Like my ancestor, Archibald Wilson, James Orr was a radical thinker, patriot, United Irishman, New Light Presbyterian, and a humanist with a penetrating social concern for the poor. He was a contented weaver and a small farmer who never sought social elevation. Until his death, he continued to speak the Braid Scotch that we now know as Ulster-Scots. Archibald, my ancestor, was hanged outside our village for his part in the rebellion. My grandmother said that it served him right for entering politics. However, Orr survived and went on to write great poetry. In ‘Rhyming Weavers’ my old friend the late John Hewitt described some of Orr’s poems as being far beyond the capacity of any of our other rural rhymers. Two of his poems, ‘The Penitent’ and ‘The Irish Cottier’s Death and Burial’, can undoubtedly be described as major successes of our vernacular literature.
12.00

Mr Sammy Wilson: Is a rural rhymer one of the rare birds that we were talking about?

Dr Ian Adamson: They are getting rarer now.
The works of Orr provide us with the richest information that we have about social customs, traditions and everyday living in the Ulster countryside. Many of Orr’s works are light-hearted and are intended to entertain rather than educate. My favourite is ‘The Ode to the Potatoe’ — "potatoe" is, of course, spelt with an "e", as it should be, although such spelling ruined a political career in America. The greatest export brought by the Ulster-Scots to America, apart from their music, was the potato. I shall read a couple of verses of his poem:
"Sweet to the badger, aft a lander At day-light-gaun, thou’rt on the brander, Brown skin’t, an birslet. Nane are fander To hear thee crisp, Ere in some neuk, wi’goose and gander He share the wisp.
The weel-pair’t peasants, kempin’, set ye; The weak wee boys, sho’el, weed, an’ pat ye; The auld guid men thy apples get ay Seedlin’s to raise; An’ on sow’n-seeves the lasses grate ye, To starch their claes."
Such poems form one of the finest records of the beauty of our countryside.
Thomas Beggs, another well-known folk poet, who was born in Glenwirry in 1789, called Orr "the Shakespeare of the plebeian train". Although many of his relatives were poor in material things, they had the rich resource of the countryside to sustain them. We must use every means in our power to nurture and protect that countryside.

Sir John Gorman: You have covered a lot of ground, Dr Adamson.

Mr Sam Foster: How can I follow that? The doctor is getting better as he matures. It is good that he has brought some lightness to what is an important subject. Many Members have put a great deal into our debate, and I welcome that. Indeed, the debate is very timely.
It is funny that there are different prospectives from across the Province. In Fermanagh, ASSIs are not popular at all, and people see them as a further planning obstacle. Opinions differ from one part of the world to the other. With regard to development, I have heard the cynical remark that a developer is someone who seeks a house in the woods, and a conservationist is somebody who has a house in the woods. I welcome the opportunity to outline to the Assembly what my Department has done and what it plans to do with regard to ASSIs. Before doing so, I shall set out the wider context.
As Minister of the Environment, I have as one of my main aims the promotion of a more sustainable way of living in Northern Ireland. Learning to make wiser use of our natural resources, including our countryside and wildlife, is an important part of that. We must try to meet our environmental, social and economic needs without harming the prospects for future generations. As the Executive have recognized, that is one of the keys to a more secure and prosperous future for the community.
We all enjoy the natural heritage that we have here. We all know of the quality of our countryside and the richness of its wildlife. The problem is that it is so easy to take such resources for granted and to underestimate the threats that they face, until it is too late and the damage has been done. I know that many people share my view of the importance of that heritage. For example, last autumn the biodiversity group produced a wide-ranging report on measures that should be taken to protect the variety of species and habitats that we enjoy. Moreover, many public representatives, interest groups and individuals have asked me to look at our legislation on the protection and management of ASSIs.
Several Members have put down Assembly questions on this during the last few months. I have also received a lot of correspondence from interested bodies and members of the public. Let me set out how I and the Executive as a whole are responding to this.
First, I am grateful for the additional resources made available in the recent Budget for work on environmental protection and nature conservation. While a large part of those funds will go on dealing with matters such as pollution control and waste management, wildlife and habitats will also benefit from additional funds from the management of designated sites and from payments to landowners, voluntary bodies and district councils. These will enhance our ability to encourage good conservation management at these sites.
Secondly, we are committed to producing a Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy this year. In that respect the advice of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group is most important. My officials will continue to take full account of the group’s recommendations as it prepares that strategy.
Thirdly, my Department will continue to work closely with other Departments whose responsibilities have an important bearing on the natural environment. One important example is trying to integrate conservation into policies for the countryside and the rural environment.
Fourthly, there are a wide range of policies for which my Department is responsible which are contributing to a healthier countryside for both its people and its wildlife. It is important that we do not see the value of the natural environment only in terms of individual, rare species and small pockets of land which we preserve carefully, with everything in between being up for grabs. Maintaining and improving water quality, running educational programmes in country parks and working with other interested parties to look after major areas such as Strangford Lough and Lough Neagh are all part of this wider approach. In this there will continue to be an important role for protected areas, as is clearly seen by the proposers of this motion and by others who have spoken today.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 applies to England and Wales only. In relation to sites of special scientific interest and the protection of wildlife, the Act’s provisions introduce new and enhanced powers to improve the protection and management of SSSIs in England and Wales — for example, the development of management schemes to combat neglect, an increase in penalties for deliberate damage and the ability to order restoration of the damage to SSSIs, the power to refuse consent for damaging activities, and the authority for officials to enter land to monitor sites. These new powers have been considered necessary because it is evident that a significant proportion of SSSIs in England and Wales are in an unfavourable condition. Therefore the new legislation will create conditions in which sites can be more effectively and positively managed. Owners and occupiers will benefit from clearer procedures. They will also have new rights of appeal against the actions of the conservation agencies.
The equivalent sites are known as areas of special scientific interest (ASSI) here. My officials have been telling me that we have been experiencing similar difficulties with our ASSIs. We think that there are weaknesses in the current legislation and that those weaknesses are similar to those in other parts of the United Kingdom. The present legislation does not allow us to take action against persons who are neither owners nor occupiers but who are nevertheless engaged in activities which are damaging to the sites — in other words, third parties. There is also evidence that some sites are deteriorating as a result of inadequate or inappropriate management. We accept that this is very difficult to address within the current legislation.
In some cases, where ASSIs have also been identified as special areas of conservation or special protection areas, these difficulties are risking infringement of EC Directives. Consequently my officials have been working on a consultation paper on the protection and management of ASSIs. This paper raises a number of issues which I feel are crucially important to the safeguarding of these special places.
I am pleased to be able to announce to the Assembly that I will publish the consultation paper within the next few weeks. I am also considering, separately, if the Wildlife Order should be amended to strengthen the protection of certain species. I believe that the consultation paper on ASSIs will generate a constructive and wide-ranging debate on this important aspect of the conservation of our natural heritage.

Mr Jim Wells: The Minister used the phrase "within the next few weeks". Can he be more specific and tell us on what date he hopes to table this consultation document for the perusal of the Assembly?

Mr Sam Foster: It is difficult to name an actual date, but I estimate that it will be within the next six weeks.
I am also considering separately whether or not the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 should be amended to strengthen the protection of certain species, as I said. I believe that the consultation paper on areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs) will generate a constructive and wide-ranging debate on this important aspect of the conservation of our natural heritage. I will be particularly looking for comments and responses from organisations representing landowners, farmers, fishermen, industry, environmentalists, recreational pursuits and many others, since I consider that we will achieve much more by working in partnerships.
The potential of partnerships as a way of achieving management is well illustrated by Ballynahone bog at Maghera, which I learnt about in the autumn. We set up a partnership to manage this national nature reserve, involving the Environment and Heritage Service of my Department and the Ulster Wildlife Trust. What pleases me most about this arrangement is the commitment shown to it by the third partner, the locally based Friends of Ballynahone Bog. Having successfully campaigned to save the bog, the Friends are not stepping aside but taking an active role in plans to look after it.
When we have considered the responses to the issues raised during the consultation I will make specific proposals for changes to the legislation and any changes required to current procedures. My objectives throughout this process will be to secure improvements in the procedures for notifying sites; to achieve better protection for sites from development operations which damage the special interests and from deliberate damage; to secure better management of designated sites by both public and private landowners; and to get better value for money from payments to landowners to protect and manage sites by requiring conservation benefits.
A few questions have been raised. I will try to answer some of them.
Dr McCrea referred to the resources of the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS). An additional £2·5 million of programme money will be allocated to conservation and biodiversity, the management of designated sites, and meeting our obligations under European Directives. The EHS will also benefit from additional staff to do this work. In the coming year 12 new posts will be created in this area of work alone, and other new posts will be established in the relocated areas of pollution control and waste management.
Assembly Members Carson, Douglas, Wilson and Davis were worried about the provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The consultation that I have announced will not include the access provisions. Responses to the 1999 consultation exercise on access to the countryside pointed up the importance of the issue of occupiers’ liability. My Department, in conjunction with the Countryside Access and Activities Network, has commissioned a study into occupiers’ liability as it pertains in Northern Ireland. The initial findings of that study will soon be circulated through the publication of a leaflet, and the consultant appointed will be holding two public seminars in the near future. My Department expects that a report on the public response to these findings will be published in June.
Assemblyman Ford was concerned about hare coursing. The regulation of hare coursing is a matter for the Department for Social Development, while permits to take live hares from the wild are issued by my Department. These permits are issued subject to certain conditions. Permission to take the hares must be obtained from the relevant landowners. The permit also requires that the hares be released back into the area from where they were taken. I am advised that there is no strong case for withholding permits on the grounds of conservation.
However, my Department recently published a biodiversity action plan for the Irish hare. This plan was put together with help from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Ulster Wildlife Trust. Although the number of hares has declined markedly in recent years, coursing is not identified in the plan as one of the principal threats to their survival. However, the plan does propose that the legislative protection of the Irish hare should be reviewed, and we will be looking at that over the next year.

Mr David Ford: Will the Minister confirm that two hares were taken on Rathlin Island for last autumn’s coursing and were not returned to the island, in contravention of the licence under which they were taken? They should be released back into the wild in the same area.

Mr Sam Foster: Somebody reported at one time that 70 hares had been taken from Rathlin Island. I do not know where they got that from. I can confirm that two hares were taken from Rathlin Island, but as I understand it — and I will confirm it — the two hares were returned. If I am wrong, I will give a written reply. Nevertheless, it is an important issue and I take the point.
Mr Jim Wilson referred to planning control. He was very concerned about the need for better planning control to protect the countryside. That is a good point. I am determined to look at the implications of that for our planning control system.

Mr George Savage: Is the Minister aware that there are fewer houses in the countryside now than there were 25 years ago?

Mr Sam Foster: I am aware that there are concerns in parts of the country about the lack of housing in rural areas. Nevertheless, the number of houses that have been built throughout the countryside largely equates with that in other places. There is concern throughout the farming community about the problem of getting houses in rural areas. I have had that experience in my own county of Fermanagh.
Mr Arthur Doherty referred to European designations. He mentioned the designation of Natura 2000 European sites. These are designations that satisfy the EU Birds and Habitats Directives (79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC). I am pleased to state that my Department is meeting its obligations under these Directives. Furthermore, sites that are being added to the Natura 2000 network are, in all cases, protected by underpinning ASSI declarations.
I have discussed what my Department is doing or is planning to do but, as with all the main environmental problems, the solution lies not in regulation alone but in actions by all sectors and, indeed, by society as a whole. We must acknowledge the value of the environment to ourselves and to succeeding generations. Each of us, as an individual, never mind whole sectors, can and should make a difference. We must work at it ourselves. All sectors — central and local government, the private and voluntary sectors — need to work together.
As I said in relation to Ballynahone Bog, the most effective initiatives will be those based on partnership between sectors. The work of the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Group in making its recommendations last year is another excellent example of this. As this debate shows, the interest of Members will continue to help both my officials and myself in developing our policy. Therefore I sincerely hope that everyone — not least this Assembly — will grasp the opportunity provided by the forthcoming consultation to develop the type of partnership approach, including all those involved in the management and use of our natural heritage, that will be so vital to our success. I am looking forward to hearing as wide a range of views as possible from those interested in caring for our natural heritage.
I welcome this debate and am pleased to have participated in it.

Ms Jane Morrice: I thank the Minister for announcing that the consultation will take place within six weeks. Perhaps this debate has been a taster for that consultation. We have heard many interesting and different views from all parties, so it is certainly a forerunner to the consultation that the Minister will be carrying out. I look forward to the immediate enactment of legislation as a result of that consultation.
It may have been an oversight on my part not to outline the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 as it stands. I understood it to be two separate pieces of legislation. The Unionists, and Mr Bradley, were concerned about the right to roam and the issue of access. Mr Douglas also mentioned it. However, those were two separate pieces of legislation, which were put together simply for reasons of parliamentary procedure to get them through. The motion relates solely to the countryside element and to ASSIs. I am talking about equivalent protection. Any legislation that comes through to Northern Ireland will not include that access element. We are not asking for that.
The Committee Chairperson indicated that the Committee is looking at these issues and has been pressing the Minister to move on this. That is very useful to know. Obviously, through a concerted attempt from all of us, we are getting movement on this. He also mentioned the penalties for damaging ASSIs, and that is very important.
It is very appropriate that the Deputy Chairperson and Arthur Doherty mentioned the European context and the need to keep up to European standards, set by EC Directives and European designations. We need to keep up with those Directives and to enhance them. Northern Ireland has a very poor track record in bringing European Directives on-stream. I know from previous experience that Northern Ireland was lagging behind in the introduction of European legislation on environmental policy. We need to move very quickly on that.
Mrs Carson, Jim Wilson and Ivan Davis talked about the right to roam issue. I hope that I have dispelled any fears about that, allowing them to support the motion.
It was excellent that this motion allowed a number of Members to wax lyrical. I mention Mick Murphy from Sinn Féin and Ian Adamson. I am thankful for their contributions, for one side of the House was quoting Pete Seeger’s "Where have all the flowers gone?", and the other side quoted every Ulster poet. It is a perfect opportunity — and totally correct — for lyricism to come into this rural rhyming.
Very interestingly, David Ford brought up the issue of hare coursing on Rathlin Island. I have been approached about that subject as well. I thank the Minister for responding to that and for adding his voice to the concerns.
Mr Ford also brought in the whole issue of the confusion in the Department. The Minister is really going to have to get to grips with the Department’s roles and responsibilities with regard to roads, planning, protection of the environment, et cetera. As Mr Ford said, there is absolutely no doubt that, while in this Assembly we talk politics most of the time — or the politics of controversy, let us say — our constituents write to us, begging us to talk about issues which probably affect the Minister’s Department more than any other Department in this Assembly. I get more questions about matters such as planning, transport and wildlife conservation than about any others. That should impress their importance upon the Minister and the Department.
Cedric Wilson brought up the vitally important issue of planning, and others referred to it — the erosion of the green belt and the areas which are being encroached upon by planning. If I am right, the Minister admits that better planning control is needed. That is certainly welcome, and we look forward to hearing positive, concrete proposals with regard to the very important issue of the consultation process on area plans, et cetera.
Each Member brought up different points on this issue. Mr Douglas talked about the cost of injury (for example, for people traversing these areas), landlord liability and — looking at it from the landlord’s point of view — compensation for the land. The consultation process will bring in all elements, and I certainly welcome that.
I hope that I have not missed out any Members in my summing up. Mr McLaughlin and Mr Mick Murphy mentioned the need to ensure that standards of protection are equivalent — not just within the United Kingdom, including England and Wales, but within this island, these islands and Europe in general. That is a very important point.
I appreciated Mr McLaughlin’s point relating to the only Act that Nationalists supported.

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin: Succeeded in passing.

Ms Jane Morrice: Succeeded in passing.
I refer to the Wild Birds Protection Act of 1931. That is also an important point.
Mr Gibson mentioned the fact that this is a golden opportunity. I wholeheartedly agree that the consultation process is a golden opportunity.
I conclude by stating that this debate is a superb example of people power. People, spurred on by the lobbing groups and the non-governmental organisations that protect the environment, wrote to their Assembly Members; those Members acted, and the Minister has given a commitment. That is an excellent example of the system’s working speedily, for we are almost there.
Mr Wells is, unfortunately, not in the Chamber, but I appreciated his point about having attempted, some 15 years ago, to table a motion of this type but having no support. I say to Mr Wells that it is marvellous that we have all caught up with him now and are able to support this motion so many years later.
I talked about people power. In this two-hour debate today we have witnessed the normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland. It is not just people power that has worked today, but also bird power.

Sir John Gorman: Before putting the Question I remind Members that the mover withdrew references to access and the right to roam.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of the Environment to note the enactment of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and calls for equivalent protection to be extended to areas of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland.
The sitting was suspended at 12.27 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair) —

BSE

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Has the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development asked to make a statement today on the BSE report from the European Union on Northern Ireland?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have no indication from the Minister that she intends to make a statement.

Punishment Beatings

Mr Donovan McClelland: Before calling Dr Paisley to move the motion, I want to make a comment about timing. At the Business Committee meeting this afternoon it was agreed that there will be no time restriction on either the proposer of the motion or the proposer of the amendment, but, owing to the substantial number of people who have indicated that they wish to speak, the Committee agreed that the time limit for other Members will be five minutes.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes with grave concern the contents of the ‘Informal Criminal Justice Systems in Northern Ireland’ report on punishment beatings by paramilitary organisations; deplores and condemns the Government’s inadequate response to the report; and calls on the Government to bring forward measures to ensure those responsible are made amenable to the law.
I very much resent the curtailment of this debate. This is a matter of grave importance. It is a running sore in both communities, and, since we meet on only two days a week, we should surely take as much time as possible to deal with issues with which people are concerned. This is a matter of maiming, killing and crucifying people, and the time has surely come when this Assembly should order its business and remember the strength of the motions that are going before this House and the subjects that they are dealing with. To ask me to deal with this matter in 15 minutes is ridiculous, but to say to my Colleagues that they will get five minutes is absolutely outrageous.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There was no time restriction on yourself or the mover of the amendment. The other Members have five minutes.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: That is even more outrageous to the ordinary people in this Assembly. I will certainly do my best, because I want the Members to have an opportunity to speak, and I would like to hear what they have to say on this subject.
I welcome the report of the Economic and Social Research Council violence research project, but I think that most of the Members have got only the summary of the report. I understand from the Library that my office is the only one that asked for the full report.

Mr Robert McCartney: We asked for the full report but did not get it.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: They did not get it. That is terrible. It is a very lengthy report — I have it here in my hand. It is the ‘Economic and Social Research Council End of Award Report’ and gives a background to the whole history of the situation. It is made up of various papers, one of which has as part of its title "See no evil, hear no evil", which seems to be the attitude of the Secretary of State, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Another paper deals with ‘The "Deserving" Victims of Political Violence: "Punishment" Attacks in Northern Ireland’. A third is entitled ‘Joined-Up Government: A Multi-Agency Response to Violence in Northern Ireland.’ It is a very interesting document.
Of course, those who want to keep together the charade of the Government that we have do not want to read the material that is contained here.
Another paper is to do with ‘An acceptable Level of Violence’, and that is the argument we are being asked to listen to.
Last night I was speaking to a pressman from the BBC — that wonderful institution that we all have to tolerate with Christian love and gratitude for the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table, although we all have to pay licence fees to keep those employed there in a good job — and he was saying that there is not as much violence as there used to be.
Tell that to the young man who was crucified. Tell that to the parents who are mourning what has happened to their family. The invaluable documents, ‘ "An Acceptable Level of Violence" — Community Responses to Crime in Northern Ireland and South Africa’ and ‘The Return of "Captain Moonlight" — Informal Justice in Northern Ireland’, should have been made available by the Library or put in Members’ pigeonholes. A good deal of research has been carried out, but this information has not been considered by Members, through no fault of their own, because it was not made available to them.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the hon Member agree that there seems to be a concerted policy of "dumbing down" any material, research or academic work that points to the Government’s policy of turning a blind eye to the excesses of those parties fronting paramilitaries, who are retaining their weapons and who are responsible for this obscenity?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I agree, but I would go further. I am sure my hon Friend will agree that those who support this Government are those who got the mad men out of the jails and released them into the community. These people, who are experts in, and godfathers of, this type of crime, are behind these attacks which are being carried out across the Province. I welcome this report, which gives us vital, detailed information. No Member will be able to refute this report because they have not been able to read it.
Prof Knox did not pull any punches. He had a task to carry out, and he did not tailor the information in any way. He said it like it is, and this House would do well to listen to him. A misguided political agenda has brought this situation about. I would, in fact, go further and describe the political agenda as one which is criminal-supporting. This report exposes the failures of the Belfast Agreement. But, of course, if one dares to expose the failures, there will be just one line on the tongue of the Gentleman opposite and on the tongues of the Gentlemen here: "You are against peace". What an atrocious lie. To make this claim is to tell the mother who objects to her 14-year-old child being beaten up and tormented in her home that she is "against peace".
I suggest that every Member go to the Library and read the tragic poem contained in the last page of this report:
"Oh mother I am frightened, masked men broke down the door They ran upstairs and beat your son; he’s lying on the floor. For anti-social behaviour — what can they mean? Sure my brother he is just a child, he’s only turned fourteen. Don’t cry my son; do not fear your broken bones will mend But cursed is this country where violence knows no end."
That is a cry from the heart to which the Assembly should listen. I see in the amendment which is to be moved that police and those who support the policing arrangements in Northern Ireland are being held responsible. That is the sad and sorry situation we find ourselves in today.
In their Economic and Social Research Council Violence Research Project, Knox and Monaghan expose the folly behind present Government policy, saying
"for the British Government it is easier to ‘see no evil, hear no evil’ in relation to this violence."
The report states that the parties who negotiated the Belfast Agreement all signed up to the Mitchell principles of peace and democracy. Paragraph 20 of the Mitchell report of 1996 stated
"we join the governments, religious leaders and many others condemning punishment killings and beatings."
And then what do they do? They turn a blind eye to them. A senior officer of the British Army told me the other day that each night the Army makes a log of such events but is told that they will not be published in any press. The figures are logged officially, but without publication. So what the Army has found out about beatings is never reported. We read reports from the RUC, but we never see the Army reports.
These beatings contribute to the fear that those who have used violence to pursue political objectives in the past will do it again in the future. Such attacks have no place in any lawful society, and to ask the people of Northern Ireland to agree to an "acceptable level of violence" is an insult to people living in this part of the United Kingdom. No level of violence is acceptable. It must cease forthwith.
This research paper also reveals why the Government have failed to deal effectively with these attacks. The Government do not want to listen to anyone who criticises and rightly condemns what is happening. As a result, when a politician does criticise he is told "You are just playing politics and that is the party line." When academics take time to research and collate the relevant statistics, they too are criticised. The Deputy First Minister and the First Minister himself made an effort to play this report down.
In his report, Prof Knox criticised the former Secretary of State on a vital point. She maintained that the status of the ceasefires was a judgement she alone had to make — even though the criminals broke the ceasefires and used guns. By way of excuse, I heard one of the Ministers say "Well, we have not had any breach of the ceasefire because the ceasefire is not to do with stabbing — it has to do with shooting." These criminals have been using their revolvers and their guns now for some time, but that has made no difference. The Secretary of State is not the person to say whether a ceasefire has been broken — the general public witnesses it and can see that it has.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the hon Member not agree that it is even more despicable for officials of the Northern Ireland Office to dismiss murders such as that of Charles Bennett as matters of internal housekeeping which do not constitute a breach of a ceasefire?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: We have come to a Mafia situation. Mafia chiefs are respected and are told "You are in charge of keeping your house in order, and we can assure you that nothing will be done about it." That shows that we have come to an all-time low in this country we love.
The Secretary of State is the sole arbiter on breaches of ceasefires, which means that Loyalists and Republicans can take the actions they do because they know that neither they nor their patronage will come to any harm politically.
Whom did the Prime Minister meet when he was over here last week? He did not meet any of the parties opposed to the agreement, but he did hold talks at Hillsborough. Whom did he talk to? He talked to representatives of the people who are carrying out the genocide on the Shankill Road and other areas. The First Minister saw to it that the leader of the Ulster Democratic Party — I think that is what they call themselves — was in the Forum. So the patronage goes on, and the killings will go on until oxygen is taken away from the terrorists and they can no longer continue with their activities.
My hon Friend Mr McCartney made the point that conceding that paramilitaries can control and brutalise their own communities with a political end in mind is a de facto acceptance by the Government that there is an acceptable level of violence and that these people can take the law into their own hands.
This research is an indictment of the Belfast Agreement. Today we are bringing to the bar of accountability the people who are responsible and those who have given them incentives. The blame rests not only on the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and their supporters but also on their masters and the Secretary of State. They cannot, Pilate-like, wash their hands of this matter. It will not be going away.
What are the facts? The facts are very serious indeed, but, rather than go over the statistics, I want to concentrate on the increased activity. In the past nine days alone four 15-year-old schoolboys have been attacked by self-appointed punishment squads, both Republican and Loyalist. Over the same period four more teenagers have either been shot or beaten by squads intent on tightening their grip on their turf, just prior to what is envisaged as yet another critical moment for the future of the peace process.
RUC figures for January 2000 show a total of 12 paramilitary punishment beatings and one shooting compared with seven shootings and seven assaults by the middle of last week — and we are not even at the end of January. In 2000, 86 punishment shootings were carried out by Loyalists and 50 by Republicans. During the same 12-month period punishment beatings by Loyalists totalled 72, and those by Republicans 54. A small number of instances involved the new crucifixion shooting, where a victim is shot through both hands and both feet. This type of shooting makes it difficult for a victim to return to normal life as he could have done with the traditional kneecapping punishment. This is the situation we face. This is the situation that the Assembly needs to deal with this afternoon, and there can be no red herrings about policing, because it has nothing to do with policing.
This is to do with those who direct the forces of the law. If they receive reports about what is happening and who is responsible and close their eye to those reports, they are involving the forces of the Crown in wasting public money on investigating crime. When the Secretary of State and public representatives are presented with the crime, they close their eyes. There are also people so intent on boasting up the charade that is the so-called peace process that they are prepared to excuse punishment beatings. They say nothing about them, and when the issue is debated they remain silent.
The Belfast Agreement states that the report and the proposed reform of the RUC will solve nothing in the short term. Let us face up to it. It is not a matter of whether or not you get Patten. We have a Government who will not put down political violence. They want to get the Unionist majority, who are opposed now to the agreement and are rock solid in their opposition to it, to lower the flag and compromise. Mr Ken Maginnis, the spokesperson for the Official Unionist Party, made more concessions. We were told that they never made any concessions, but now he says "We can make no more concessions." There will be no withdrawal of resistance by the majority of the Unionist people, for they know that if they have this in the green, what will they have in the dry? If this so-called peace process continues, and continues to achieve its aims, we will be plunged into far greater violence. The IRA will come out for the last great shove to push us, in this bicentennial year, out of the Union all together.
Therefore this is a life and death situation. Those who want to colour the situation politically are wrong. We must face up to the fact that this is happening to our people on both sides of the religious divide. Either we have to be their custodians or guardians, or we should shut up. And I am not prepared to shut up on the issue. It must be exposed. Something has to be done.
I regret that I have gone over the 15 minutes that I tried to keep to. However, I had some preliminary things to say and I have said them, and I tried to say them as quickly as possible so that all who want can take part in the debate. Again, not for myself, for you told me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I could speak for the whole two hours — not that I would think of doing such a dreadful thing. If I were a Back-Bencher, however, I would resent being only permitted five minutes to discuss matters that have not only disgusted my constituency but have led to the removal of people from their homes.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have received one amendment, which is published in the Marshalled List.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: I beg to move the following amendment: Delete all after "organisations" and add
"and calls on the Government to address this issue through the creation of an accountable policing service that has the support of all communities."
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. To date, the response of both the Government and the community to crime and the damage done to our communities by antisocial elements has been totally inadequate. Punishment beatings do not make communities any safer. They are a response to a lack of effective action from an accountable and acceptable policing service. They are a response to a policing deficit. The University of Ulster’s Economic and Social Research Council report highlights the strong support that there is for alternatives in the absence of a legitimate policing service.
Rising levels of antisocial behaviour in our communities are having a devastating effect. That is fact. In Nationalist and Republican areas the RUC is not dealing with this problem. That is fact. The formal criminal justice system has failed. That is fact. No one can condone punishment beatings. They do not make our community safer. The RUC itself has been engaged in attacks on our communities, and it is also responsible for punishment beatings. As recently as last week five people, including a Sinn Féin councillor, were badly assaulted in West Tyrone. Two weeks ago, my party Colleague Gerry Kelly was awarded substantial damages because a police officer assaulted him. Time and time again, members of the RUC have been found not to be amenable to the law. That was apparent in the recent case of Davy Adams, who was severely beaten by the RUC and awarded substantial damages. No legal action was taken against those in the RUC who were responsible. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
There is a culture of impunity in the RUC. That is another reason why accountability is imperative. The link between RUC inactivity and antisocial behaviour in Nationalist communities is well known, if not widely reported. Nationalists are all too aware that the RUC is prepared to allow criminals to operate freely in exchange for their acting as informants.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely this debate and amendment have been moved on the issue of punishment beatings. I have never seen any evidence to suggest that any of these so-called punishment beatings were carried out by RUC members.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please continue, Ms Gildernew.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: The RUC, with all its surveillance, intelligence-gathering equipment, guns and plastic bullets, has had every opportunity to demonstrate that it is able to tackle, and is committed to tackling, crime in Nationalist areas. It has failed to do this. Known criminals are apprehended by the RUC and frequently released without charge. That was the case with those involved in a series of pharmacy robberies in West Belfast. Indeed, antisocial criminals are returned —

Mr Peter Weir: Will the Member give way?

Ms Michelle Gildernew: No. Indeed, antisocial criminals are returned to cause havoc and pain in Nationalist areas when they are released into our communities. That is due to lenient sentencing, suspended sentences, and the fact that the RUC has intervened on their behalf in exchange for their agreement to work as RUC informers. The RUC agenda in Nationalist communities is all too clear. It wishes to create a network of informers and cause destabilisation.
What can we do to end punishment beatings? We need to create a new police service that is democratically accountable and acceptable to the local community. That is not the RUC. The RUC is not accountable, or acceptable, to Nationalists and Republicans. The RUC is not tackling the spiralling levels of antisocial crime, drug dealing and so-called joyriding. The RUC is encouraging this increase in antisocial crime by its attitude and response to Nationalist and Republican communities. The creation of an accountable policing service, with the support of all communities, is being obstructed. Supporters of progress should recognise that everyone wants to achieve that goal.
It is not merely Republicans, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Irish Government and the Catholic Church that need to see progress on this issue. Everyone has a stake in the creation of a new policing service. If we are to stamp out antisocial behaviour, and the responses to it, which do little to improve community safety, then the creation of an accountable and acceptable policing service is necessary. Unfortunately, the Mandelson policing Act has gutted the Patten Report. There is a real need for this deficit to be addressed otherwise we will again be left with a policing deficit.
I would like to pay tribute to those in the community who are working to tackle crime through non-violent means. These people recognise that the RUC and the formal justice system have failed our communities. Restorative justice projects, such as Community Restorative Justice (CRJ) and others, have demonstrated a real commitment to tackling these problems. Many people are freely giving their time and energy to make their communities safer. They are working to create new alternatives to punishment beatings, the failed formal criminal justice system and the RUC. Sinn Féin totally supports CRJ. We need to see a greater commitment from Government to increase resources for these initiatives.
I ask Members to support the Sinn Féin amendment calling on the Government to address this issue through the creation of an accountable policing service that has the support of all communities. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Roy Beggs: I support the motion. Punishment beatings are one of the greatest abuses of human rights in Northern Ireland today. The reality of this barbaric activity can be seen in this week’s ‘Sunday Times’. The Provisional IRA is reported to have shot a 17-year-old boy for breaking windows. That is the reality of what is happening in our society. I consider the Sinn Féin amendment to be simply a way of continuing to play with words. Unionists want to see actual deeds, not fancy words. I will be opposing the amendment, given its source and objective.
I am also aware of brutal attacks in my own constituency by Loyalists. There is a problem in both communities. Some of these attacks involve baseball bats studded with nails. It is unbelievable what has been happening. These are irreversible human tragedies, leaving many young victims scarred and disabled for life. There is also a huge and unnecessary financial burden on the Health Service. It has enough broken bones on its waiting lists without creating others. The Health Minister, Bairbre de Brún, has refused to provide me with figures on punishment beatings that have been treated by the Health Service, or even to report the number of admissions. There is a huge financial cost, as well as the personal tragedies involved, and that should be reported.
I welcome the fact that the RUC is now providing accurate figures on punishment beatings that have been formally reported to the police. The figures are available on the RUC’s web site and can be stood over. It is a shame that in the past this information had to be collated by volunteers and charities. I accept that many people suffering attacks will still not appear on these lists. Some people still do not go to the police, fearing further punishment.
There are worrying trends. In particular I look at the figures starting in 1995, when there were three shootings involved in paramilitary attacks. This has now risen to 115 — 75 by Loyalist groups and 40 by Republican groups. That is not acceptable in any society. At the same time there are still large numbers of brutal paramilitary- style physical attacks and beatings — up until November, 62 by Loyalists and 44 by Republican groups.
What would we be saying if this were happening in some Third-World state or banana republic? This is happening in Northern Ireland today, which is in the Western World and claims to be a Christian, civilised society. It is continuing, and will continue, until Nationalist and some Loyalist groups show leadership in their own communities. When are they going to accept that they too have a responsibility for this outrageous behaviour, as long as they hold back full support for the police? Silence is sometimes encouraging punishment attacks.
Restorative justice has been advocated earlier. It is criticised in this report as often being synonymous with the punishment attacks themselves. Indeed, there has been specific press criticism of the fact that in some areas the former judge of the kangaroo court is now the chief mentor in restorative justice. What people are being offered is "Agree with some community service or we will blow your knees off." That is not real restorative justice. There is a clear correlation between political events and punishment beatings in Northern Ireland — the Knox Report shows this. Restorative justice must be clearly linked to the rule of law if it is to be done properly. It must be linked to the proper criminal justice system. It is not a way to legitimise kangaroo courts or informal administration of justice. The criminal justice system itself must be seen to be effective in dealing with petty crime and antisocial behaviour.
In the context of human rights, punishment beatings breach the right to life, the prohibition on torture, the right to liberty and security and the right to a fair trial — "no punishment beating without trial". Punishment beatings constitute the most significant breach of human rights in Northern Ireland today.

Mr Alban Maginness: Punishment shootings and beatings are a huge problem for our society. According to calculations, 2,303 people have been shot in punishment attacks since 1973, and 1,626 people have been beaten in such attacks since 1982. These quotes are an underestimation of the actual figures rather than an accurate record of the number of these attacks — we do have a huge problem.
Dr Ian Paisley has blamed the Good Friday Agreement for punishment attacks, while Ms Gildernew has blamed the RUC. However, in truth, we have an unstable society, in which paramilitaries have grown up and in which they have chosen to exercise political control and to carry out so-called policing of their areas through the medium of punishment attacks. All right-thinking people in the Chamber must condemn this. I am disappointed that some Members who have spoken did not forthrightly condemned these attacks.
The Good Friday Agreement gives us an opportunity to put an end to these attacks once and for all. It does so by providing the right political context in which to provide political stability and a system of government in which there is respect for both political traditions. Within that stable system, we can attack the very roots of paramilitarism, which have cursed and bedevilled our society.
We have tried, in the context of the Good Friday Agreement, to create a human rights culture, and we will continue to do so. As Mr Beggs said, these attacks offend the European Convention on Human Rights because they contravene the right to life, the prohibition on torture, the right to liberty and security and the right to a fair trial.
The prohibition on torture is not being adhered to, in any way, by paramilitary organisations which continue, through their actions, to torture and degrade ordinary citizens in our society.
This report usefully highlights the whole issue of punishment beatings and shootings. It also criticises the statutory agencies, including the Housing Executive, the Social Security Agency and the Compensation Agency. Those criticisms remain unfounded, but I am certain that the Northern Ireland Executive are prepared to investigate them in a serious and considerate fashion and to respond to them in a fair and just manner.
Therefore we cannot support the latter part of Dr Paisley’s motion. While supporting the first part of it, which condemns paramilitary violence and punishment beatings and shootings, we cannot support the implicit criticism of the Northern Ireland Administration, which has not yet responded to the very criticisms highlighted in this report.
I am certain that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the Administration and those Ministers who have responsibility for those institutions — such as the Minister for Social Development, who is in charge of the Housing Executive and the Social Security Agency — will attempt to respond to those criticisms.
My party supports the amendment. Of course, a system of policing which is acceptable and accountable to both communities will serve effectively to diminish the level of punishment attacks in our community.
However, it cannot do that by itself. We need a collective commitment by everyone in our society to respect one another’s political cultures and, in particular, civil and human rights. We will be unable to deal with this problem if we do not respect those rights. Therefore, while we support the amendment, we do not regard it as being completely able to tackle the problem of punishment attacks.

Mr Norman Boyd: Regrettably, shootings and beatings by paramilitary organisations are a daily occurrence, particularly since the signing of the Belfast Agreement. They are carried out primarily by pro-agreement paramilitaries. On 14 May 1998 the Prime Minister said that the ceasefires were indeed complete and unequivocal and that there would be the dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence. On 19 November 1999 the Belfast High Court ruled that murders carried out by the Provisional IRA in its own community did not break its ceasefire, thereby providing a green light for ongoing paramilitary activity. As stated in the Economic and Social Research Council report produced by Prof Colin Knox and Dr Rachel Monaghan,
"The Mitchell principles of ‘democracy and non-violence’, to which all constitutional political parties subscribe, have been compromised in the interests of moving forward politically."
Paramilitaries have some sort of warped logic, which is, sadly, endorsed by the Government, which says that there is a difference between so-called military operations and the other barbarities that they exact on their communities. It is a terrible indictment on the Government that they are described as having a "See no evil, hear no evil" attitude to paramilitary violence.
The breakdown in law and order is a direct result of the Belfast Agreement and its appeasement of terrorism. Paramilitary organisations have been strengthened by the release of their leading activists, funding of £6 million provided by the European Union and the UK Government and the elevation of their inextricably linked parties into the centre of the political process. Plush new community offices have been provided for ex-prisoners, giving a centre for paramilitaries in the heart of some working-class areas.
Today, paramilitary organisations are structurally and financially stronger than ever. Armed and masked robberies, racketeering and extortion are a daily occurrence. Building contractors, retail shops and businesses, particularly in working-class areas, are literally being held to ransom. There have been 14 armed robberies in the last four weeks in Newtownabbey alone. The latest was at an off-licence in Glengormley last night. Armed robberies have more than doubled in Newtownabbey in the past two years and have increased considerably throughout Northern Ireland.
The Ulster Unionist Party leader, David Trimble, said in his 1998 election manifesto that paramilitary organisations must dismantle, disarm and stop the beatings, and that the Ulster Unionist Party would hold Mr Blair to his promises and would not sit in the Government of Northern Ireland with unreconstructed terrorists. Other parties gave similar commitments, yet we see the election of persons belonging to parties inextricably linked to paramilitary organisations to civic offices in Fermanagh, Belfast, Londonderry, Newtownabbey and elsewhere, with the assistance of votes from other political parties. We need more than just words of condemnation from all democrats.
The report states that paramilitaries set themselves up as the police for their own areas. The ongoing demands from Nationalists for the disbandment of the RUC and the scaling down of policing resources by a weak Government have resulted in the strengthening of the paramilitaries’ grip in many communities and the rule of law being compromised. The report says
"Those individuals ‘punished’ by paramilitaries are denied ‘due process’ and the beatings and the shootings meted out are becoming more vicious and prolonged."
The statistics provided in the report are shocking. On average, there have been 85 so-called punishment shootings and 90 beatings per year since 1973. However, these figures are underestimated by 50%, because many attacks are unreported due to victims’ fears. The report also says that there is no information available on charges brought against the perpetrators. However, detection rates are described as "relatively low". The figures show a significant increase in beatings and an increasing trend in the numbers of exiles since the so-called ceasefires of 1994. Exiling is a method paramilitaries use to exact their form of justice without the same outcry from the community that beatings and shootings cause.
Most beatings happen to young males who are in their twenties. Twenty-five per cent of those attacked are under 20 years old. Kids as young as 13 and 14 have been attacked.
One victim named in the report is Ian Price. He was a 13-year-old boy who was singled out from a group of friends by masked men, flung to the ground and beaten with baseball bats studded with nails. He suffered a shattered elbow, broken fingers, deep puncture wounds to his legs, cuts and multiple bruising. After the attack, a gun was put to his head and he was ordered out of the country. He was a 13-year-old boy. Yet, we have those parties that are inextricably linked to paramilitary organisations referring to the rights of children and calling for the appointment of a commissioner for children.
IRA/Sinn Féin have consistently refused to call on the community to assist the police in apprehending those responsible for horrific crimes, even those against their own people — for example, the recent deaths on the Antrim Road, Belfast, of a mother and daughter due to youths in a stolen car.
I support the motion.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: It ceases to amaze me that some people who have read this report seem to have selective amnesia. They select pieces of the report — not all of it.
We need to end punishment beatings and shootings and we need to find a way forward. Unfortunately, Members have not used this opportunity to discuss how we could do that. We do not have time to wait for a new policing service. It needs to happen now.
As a number of Members have said, we are brutalising our society and our young people. However, this issue needs a society and a community response. There are people who are carrying out so-called antisocial behaviour, but there are also people in the community who are reporting others for such behaviour and asking for something to be done. We need to change attitudes, and we need to change how we deal with this issue. I would like us to focus on some of the ways forward.
Some Members have said that the solution needs to be connected to the justice system. Of course it does. However, there are already programmes in place that are supported by the police and statutory agencies and which are not about beating young people or anyone else.
This is about trying to find a way forward and about changing attitudes. Attitudes will not be changed overnight — it takes years. All of us will have to suffer what happens until we do change those attitudes. People should not lift a gun or beat others with a baseball bat. We need to find other ways forward. We can all make excuses for why punishment beatings happen, or do not happen, but the only way that we are going to prevent them is by coming up with alternatives.
As regards the report’s accuracy, I have heard Members in the past supporting Vincent McKenna — a bastion of veracity, as we all know — who we found out had fabricated statistics and told us all that people were doing things when they were not. We need to be careful about how these reports are compiled.
We have all seen statistics and we know that there are
"lies, damned lies and statistics."
We need to be careful. It does not matter whether one person or 101 people have been punished in the last 27 years. The point is that it happened. We need to be asking "How do we move into the future? How do we find ways forward?" Those are the questions we need to ask. That is what this is about.
This House is in place to bring change to Northern Ireland. We all want democracy to work whether we are anti-agreement or pro-agreement, and if this House can provide a lead, that is what we must do. I do not make excuses about the RUC. In November 1994 I said that people who have information about those who carried out antisocial behaviour should report it to the RUC. I repeat that today, but we need to ask whether the people in our communities or in society generally want justice or revenge. That is another important question. We need to respond positively and with no violence as regards antisocial behaviour in our communities.
How many Members have constituency offices in which we hear people pleading with us about the behaviour of some people outside their homes? We all report such things to the police and they say that they can do nothing, as those people are not breaking the law. That is the problem. Is this about justice or is it about revenge? Those issues need to be tackled, but that will not be done in four minutes, five minutes or two hours in the Assembly.
I congratulate Dr Ian Paisley for tabling the motion. However, Members need to have a proper debate about punishment beatings. It must be decided whether we make the issue a Committee’s responsibility or form an Ad Hoc Committee to look at the findings of the research project and examine other matters. Members must be positive. Let us bring forward a report that will tell us how to get out of this mess.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I would like to put the research project into the context of the 20 other research projects that were carried out simultaneously by the Economic and Social Research Council. It initiated large-scale funding throughout the United Kingdom for a variety of projects. The project titles were "Violence" and "Research on Violence". All the research projects concluded that predatory violence is less extensive than violence from people known to the victim. Unfortunately, the research project does not state whether the victims knew the perpetrators.
However, the research project does document the levels of punishment beatings. That had not been done to date, and it is extremely important. I agree with that part of the report, and it is hoped that from now on accident and emergency departments and the Housing Executive will keep a rigorous database — unlike that kept by Vincent McKenna and others in the past. That is a very helpful recommendation.
The research project has not fulfilled its terms of reference regarding the assessment of possible strategies for prevention and reduction. It is not sufficient for a research project to describe what organisations have not done and to suggest that there has been a level of indifference and minimisation. If we are to take this forward we need to flag up a number of things that have happened. That is why, reluctantly, I cannot support the motion.
I do not support the amendment. Sinn Féin Members should know from the research carried out in South Africa by Rachel Monaghan, the co-author of the report with Colin Knox, that reforming the police there did not stop punishment beatings or antisocial behaviour. Therefore, to support the amendment or the motion is insufficient.
The research project is overly critical of a number of organisations that have tried against the odds to put alternative strategies in place. The Probation Board for Northern Ireland has a range of programmes in place to tackle youths offending. Its "Youth at Risk" project in west Belfast, the Short Strand and east Belfast, extended now to north Belfast and Omagh, is working, and Members ought to be supporting that.
The research project states that the issue can only be tackled when community groups sit down in partnership and adopt an inter-agency, integrated approach.
Some Members may think that south Belfast is an affluent area, but it is worth noting that yesterday, for the third time in less than three months, my constituency office was robbed. Before Christmas the office was broken into by a heroin addict; yesterday people coming off the street in broad daylight robbed it. I and others were in the office. Crime among young people is certainly increasing.
The response of my constituency office on these occasions has been to contact the police, and that is the only way forward when dealing with crime. The individual who broke into the office before Christmas was eventually apprehended and brought before the courts. We must continue to make that the process of decent law and order and to follow the systems of justice that exist.
That is not to say that other bodies should not be given more legal powers. The Housing Executive is now looking at what to do about antisocial behaviour. I do not propose that anyone should deal with antisocial behaviour through punishment beatings. I will attempt to take a multi-agency approach, with education and welfare officers, officials from the Housing Executive, probation officers and juvenile liaison officers around the table to establish whether it is young people or particular families in communities who are offending.
The Housing Executive has also established a specialist antisocial behaviour unit. A police officer has been seconded to the Housing Executive, and, in turn, the Housing Executive has seconded one of its workers to Mediation Network.
It is mediation that we need. In the end, I believe we must have the increased powers that we seek in both civil and criminal law, as well as the inter-agency community responses to young people who offend. That is the only way forward.

Mr Robert McCartney: It is an indictment of the procedures of this House that, on a subject matter of this gravity, Members wishing to speak are only afforded five minutes to do so. I also find it amazing that Sinn Féin should ascribe the cause of the brutalities and obscenities in the beatings, shootings and stabbings that are going on to the RUC. What is even more amazing is that the representative of the SDLP should suggest that it is really all down to the Housing Executive and the social security agencies.
The PUP suggests that this is a matter of fraudulent statistics by making references to Vincent McKenna. The statistics quoted in the House today, however, were those of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If anything, those statistics are an understatement of the true position. Everyone knows that a very significant proportion of those who are subjected to beatings and intimidation do not report the matter to the authorities, which essentially makes these statistics an understatement.
Let me return to the political basis for these beatings. Beatings, stabbings, intimidations and shootings are a method by which paramilitary organisations, inextricably linked with some of the parties in this House, exercise political control over substantial areas of Northern Ireland. And why are they permitted to do so? They are permitted to do so in the case of Republicanism because Republicans have the political will and the capacity to bomb the mainland. The British Government’s strategic political objective is to keep bombs off the mainland, to halt attacks on economic targets and to ensure the safety of the first-class citizens on the British mainland. To maintain a degree of balance between the Republicans, who can deliver this threat, they have to also placate the Loyalist paramilitaries. If the Loyalist paramilitaries were to come off the alleged ceasefire and provoke the Republicans into a response, the whole business would collapse like a pack of cards, and the strategic objective of the British Government would be frustrated.
This report highlights two essential features. The first feature is that the principles of democracy in the rule of law, as set out by Mitchell, have been compromised, allegedly for political progress. Secondly, the British Government have adopted a "Hear no evil, see no evil" policy towards the violence of the "good terrorists" that are said to be within the peace process. In fact, there is no difference between the "good terrorists" and the dissident terrorists who have been active recently. There are only terrorists. The "good terrorists" may, in the short term, not be committing these depredations because they feel that the political system has to deliver their objectives merely by the threat of terror. But they also benefit from the terror of the so-called dissidents. Anyone who suggests that the present activity of the so-called dissidents is to wreck the peace process is living in another world.
The purpose of those dissidents is to say to the British Government "This is a taste of what the ‘good terrorists’ can give you if they come off ceasefire." That is why the British Government, with regard to the definition of the ceasefire, do not count the murder of Andrew Kearney, the murder of Charles Bennett or the massive intimidation and beatings that go on. It is also why they continue to say in the round "These are not breaches of the ceasefire."
The Chief Constable has talked about the distorted values of those "good terrorists" who describe these beatings as not being a breach of their ceasefire commitments — ceasing military operations. It seems that the British Government prefer the distorted view of terrorists to the opinion of the Chief Constable.
More and more people will be affected by the rise in crime. More and more people will be like the denizens of the ghettos — outside the peace process — and more people are beginning to question what the peace process is. It is a licence for terror as long as it serves British policy.
I support the motion.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Punishment by self-appointed persons has been part of our community for many years. In the past we had kneecapping, which often resulted in severe injuries to individuals and, in many instances, loss of limbs. That was only one of the barbaric practices carried out by so-called punishment squads. This was condoned for years by certain political parties but never condemned. The ultimate punishment is death itself. Often it meant a bullet in the head, the person blindfolded and left on a remote country road. In more recent times we have had punishment beatings using baseball bats, sticks and even sledgehammers.
The report on informal criminal justice systems carried out by the Violence Research Project found that such systems had different motivations in Loyalist and Republican areas. In Republican areas, the prime targets for punishment are young people involved in antisocial behaviour such as car theft, joyriding and housebreaking. In Loyalist areas, punishment attacks are used to maintain internal discipline and police their own areas.
According to police statistics, between 1973 and June 2000 there have been 2,303 paramilitary shootings — approximately 85 per year — of which 43% were carried out by Loyalists and 57% by Republicans. Since 1982 there have been 1,626 beatings. That is an average of 90 per year — 46% Loyalist and 54% Republican. Those are the official statistics. The actual numbers are higher, as young people are reluctant to report them for fear of reprisals. Approximately 25% of those attacked are under 20 years of age, some as young as 13 or 14. Last week ‘The Sunday Times’ reported an incident in Belfast in which a 17-year-old was shot in both feet for throwing stones at the house of a man who he believed had shot his cousin.
We are all aware that, in the main, the young people who are attacked come from socially deprived areas where the community is controlled by fear. Something must be done to protect these young people and bring the perpetrators to justice. There are two main restorative justice projects operating in Northern Ireland — Greater Shankill Alternatives and Community Restorative Justice (CRJ). Both offer a non-violent alternative to punishment attacks but need further safeguards involving all the statutory agencies before they can be given the support of the whole community.
I agree with my Colleague Alban Maginness that the Good Friday Agreement is the only means of getting rid of these so-called paramilitary attacks. It is up to us to ensure that we do nothing to disrupt that process.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I want to deal mostly with the amendment put forward by Sinn Féin. One should not be surprised that those who, in this House and elsewhere, call for commissioners for children should defend those who mutilate children. Those who, in their ministerial positions, seek to exclude and expel bullies from school let the bullies loose on the street of Nationalist areas on a nightly basis and then come into this House and try to defend what goes on in their name.
Let us have no doubt about it. What goes on in Nationalist areas goes on in the name of IRA/Sinn Féin. It is carried out by members of IRA/Sinn Féin and then supported in this House by members of IRA/Sinn Féin. What is even more despicable is that there is so little moral courage in the SDLP that it cannot distance itself from the stance of Sinn Féin.
Let us look at some of the arguments put forward today. We are told that punishment beatings take place because there is unaccountable policing. What do you put in place of that? You put into place unaccountable punishment beatings. You have people who set themselves up — as we have heard — as judge, jury and executioner. You have people who are guilty of some of the acts that they punish others for and, indeed, who protect some within their ranks guilty of similar acts.
Last August ‘The Sunday Tribune’ all but named an IRA member found guilty of child abuse and who was allowed to stay in his community, protected by the IRA, because he was related to a former IRA chief of staff in west Belfast.
In Monaghan and Newry, IRA members were found guilty of child abuse and rape but were they put out of their community? Were they expelled by those who want to police their community? No. Why? It is because of their connections. We are being lectured today about unaccountable policing, yet we are being told that this is policing, and that the actions being taken are in response to community demands.
The fact is that these actions are being carried out to show — and to enforce — the terrorists’ will in their communities. Mrs Courtney referred to the boy who was shot for breaking the windows of the IRA member he believed had shot his uncle. Oddly enough — despite this great talk about restorative justice — the boy’s mother said that the Sinn Féin representative of the local restorative justice campaign came around the night before and told the boy to report to him at 7 o’clock to have his hands broken. These are the people who believe in non-violent alternatives.
Let us look at some of those who were formerly in the ranks of IRA/Sinn Féin and who would understand what it is all about. The verdict of one person was — and this was in the lower Ormeau — that Sinn Féin was now doing things which it would be squealing about had those things been done by the RUC.
What is Sinn Féin’s aim? It is to set up a one-party police state in Nationalist areas. The RUC has warned that there will be an upsurge in such activity before the coming elections as IRA/Sinn Féin seeks to establish its print on its communities. This has nothing to do with justice.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Sammy Wilson is always a hard act to follow. He is such a good performer.
I welcome the chance to debate this issue, and I support the motion. Dr Paisley said — [Interruption] Sorry, I rise to support the amendment. That was a bit of a Freudian slip perhaps.
Dr Paisley said that the RUC issue is a red herring. I suggest, in all honesty, that you cannot divorce the absence of an accepted policing service from the issue of punishment beatings. Sinn Féin has consistently attempted, and will consistently attempt, to condemn punishment beatings in our community.
As elected politicians, councillors or Assembly Members, we have attempted to put in place a mechanism to eradicate the dreadful image of punishment beatings. It is a difficult situation, and constituents knock on your door to ask what you will do about certain individuals who are making their lives hell on earth. For one reason or another, these people do not want to go to the RUC. Perhaps in Mr Billy Hutchinson’s community they do not want to go because they do not get an adequate response. Members of the Nationalist community suspect that the RUC allows this to happen to create informers or to help create a situation on the ground where people will say that they want it back into their areas and that they want the RUC to be unreconstructed.
Databases and the various devices which were mentioned cannot cure what is a fundamentally political issue. I know of no Republican or Nationalist who wants young men, young women or anyone else to be subjected to a crucifixion shooting or a punishment beating. The fact is that this is what the local people demand, and it is difficult to know how to respond to that. The issue of the RUC is not a red herring; it is one which cannot be divorced from activities such as punishment beatings in Nationalist areas. We have heard from Mr Ervine and Mr Billy Hutchinson about what has happened in the lower Shankill and about the lack of response from the RUC during the dreadful situation that was allowed to develop in that area. It was, in fact, the efforts of the Loyalist paramilitaries, rather than any external agency, that brought an end to those attacks.
Punishment attacks and beatings are wrong; they have no place in any civilised society, and Sinn Féin has no problem in spelling that out. However, we do not yet live in a normal, civilised society that is policed in a normal way. There is an absence of fair and impartial policing. The Nationalist/Republican people do not have faith in, nor do they give allegiance to, what they consider to be a discredited RUC.
Let us not forget the ongoing punishment beatings being administered by the RUC, such as that which took place last week on two young schoolgirls at Greencastle, County Tyrone. Unfortunately, in the absence of fair and impartial policing for all, so-called punishment attacks will continue. That is neither a threat nor a promise, but a statement of fact and a recognition of the reality in Nationalist and Republican areas.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Although I have only cursorily read the report, my comments will be as relevant as some of those that have been made in the Chamber today.
Alliance supports the motion because paramilitary attacks are one of the greatest scourges of our society and it is right and proper that the Assembly should declare its total revulsion towards them. The Assembly must call upon the Government to take more resolute action to stamp them out completely.
We do, however, have reservations about two aspects of the motion. First, I am appalled at the DUP’s use of the term "punishment beatings". The use of the term "punishment" confers on the act a degree of legitimacy by suggesting that the guilt of a victim is an established fact.
The victims may be suspected of taking part in antisocial behaviour, but it is solely a suspicion — untried and unproven — on the parts of people who are not legally equipped to make those judgements. In many other instances, victims are singled out, simply for crossing the path of one of the local godfathers. The most infamous example of this is the attack on Andrew Kearney in Artillery Flats.
I want to make it clear: we should never grant legitimacy to such activities — never. The paramilitary groups involved act as judge, jury and executioner and show no regard for either the due processes of law or for basic, internationally accepted human rights standards. At the very least, the DUP should have referred to them as so-called punishment beatings or, better still, as what they really are — paramilitary attacks.
It is not just the DUP, however, who fall into that trap. The Government, the media and even some human rights groups repeatedly make the same error. The Government retain responsibility for criminal justice, and it is correct that we should call on them for more robust and resolute action against such activities. There have been few arrests, fewer prosecutions and virtually no convictions for these barbaric acts, which seem to get worse every day. There is a major problem with getting people to report what they know and to speak out in court, but there are other methods of getting evidence, such as forensic science. In pursuing the perpetrators of such barbarities, the Government must show no pragmatism or political expediency. Such activities are not directed primarily against the Good Friday Agreement, but the agreement will be greatly weakened if it is not used to strengthen the respect for the rule of law.
The attacks should be seen in the wider context of the growing problem of institutionalised paramilitarism. Some in our society like to paint a picture in which there are good paramilitaries, who are avuncular local figures, and bad paramilitaries, who are a burden on the backs of the people. All paramilitarism is wrong, and it is nothing short of subversion of the rule of law and democracy. Institutionalised paramilitarism contributes to a sense of ghettoisation and social exclusion, to say nothing of the denial of a wide range of opportunities and rights. A culture of communal separation allows the problem to grow and fester. It gives weight to the misguided notion that distinct communities in Northern Ireland can have autonomy at the expense of the police and the courts. With policing reform well under way, it is time for all parts of society to embrace a single, professional police service for the whole Province.
The RUC has come under scrutiny from a wide variety of ill-informed international bodies — and one or two local bodies — some of whom, undoubtedly, have an axe to grind. The degree of scrutiny is unparalleled anywhere in the world. The RUC has been castigated for methods that, on the whole, are more professional and more restrained than those to be seen daily in the Republic or in the USA. What do we hear from those bodies about the activity of paramilitaries? There is a deafening silence, with only the speeches and behaviour of Prof Brice Dickson and the Human Rights Commission as an honourable exception. Often, there is a suggestion — repeated, I am sorry to say, in the Sinn Féin amendment — that the cessation of such behaviour is conditional upon the creation of what such groups consider to be an accountable policing service. Silence can readily be taken as consent. It is time to stop viewing human rights as an issue relating solely to the duty of the state towards the individual citizen and to start considering it in the context of how we treat one another.
I have often seen at first hand the effects on supposed criminals and their families of a visit from the local hoods. I saw it as a worker with the Peace People organisation in the 1970s and 1980s, when I worked with families who had been intimidated. More recently, I saw it as a member of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. Prof McWilliams has described the problem.
It is an indictment of our society that such things still occur today. I support the motion, but not the amendment.

Mr Alex Attwood: I have two comments to make on Mr John Kelly’s contribution. He said that the attacks would continue because there was no policing and because it was the wish of the community. Such comments have serious implications. It does not surprise me that John Kelly should say that it was the wish of the community. In the past, another organisation from the Republican tradition imposed its will upon the community on this island. I am not surprised that now, when a small, unrepresentative section of the community in parts of the North demands punishment attacks, Sinn Féin responds, using a spurious legitimacy to justify the fact that punishment attacks are carried out in our community.
Secondly, it is the politics of denial and irresponsibility to say that because there is no policing, the worst form of policing should be imposed upon our community. That is a policing that denies human rights and denies the due process and rule of law. It imposes the worst forms of punishment upon people in very spurious and invalid circumstances. If the only basis on which Sinn Féin can come to the Chamber and explain away its attitude to punishment attacks is to say that they occur because of the wishes of a small section of people in Republican communities, and because there is no policing, then I do wonder how far Sinn Féin has moved on the issues of policing, criminal justice and how to properly conduct affairs at community level.

Mr Patrick Roche: I find the Member’s comments entirely incongruous. The Member is supporting the implementation of the Patten report, which would permit the people who are currently carrying out these so-called punishment beatings into the police. That seems to be an entirely untenable position.

Mr Alex Attwood: If the Member reads the Patten Report closely he will see that Patten sets out those who are entitled to become members of the future Police Service. There has been no objection raised by the Government on that matter in relation to its legislation. Following a close reading of the report, the Member will realise that what he has just said is inconsistent with both the Patten Report and the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000.
I now move to the Sinn Féin amendment, and attempt to position the issue of punishment attacks in the wider context of the current police debate. There are changing attitudes in society to the issue of policing, and it is important that these attitudes, which are beginning to emerge, be heard. We sense in the community that we represent, and beyond, that people want to begin to test the structures — not just the political structures that have been set up by the Good Friday Agreement, but the policing structures that could yet be set up. That is evident in the fact that many people are beginning to test the new independent police complaints mechanism.
Our communities, which have been so resilient over many years in adverse circumstances, are beginning to strain, and core community values are being put under pressure. It is time to consolidate those communities, and one mechanism of doing that is to have an agreed and acceptable police service. Whatever differences there may be on many issues arising from the Good Friday Agreement, there is a sense that the agreement itself has to be consolidated. It is our last best strategy and our future best hope. Nothing should be done that idly or recklessly endangers what has been so painfully created.
It is time for those in our communities who imposed their will through paramilitary punishment attacks, or who organised to impose their viewpoint on the wider structures of our community, to begin to roll back, so that individuals and the community are liberated and the common good is served.
We face a difficult time, and there are currently negotiations taking place in Downing Street. It is very important to understand that if we can get the policing issue right — and we might not get it right — our community is minded, willing and able to play its role in that new political and policing order. If we can get that right in the negotiations going on in Downing Street, then we can get our communities right, and we will see the purging of the tribalism of punishment attacks.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Prior to winding up, I make the point that I find it incongruous that we are debating punishment beatings as a result of a DUP motion, when numerous Catholic homes have been attacked in places such as Larne and Coleraine. There has been a deafening silence from the Unionist communities on those sectarian attacks on Catholic homes.
Roy Beggs said that he could not support the amendment because of its source and its objective. I cannot understand how anyone can object to the creation of an accountable policing service that enjoys the support of all communities.
Billy Hutchinson said that there was a need to change attitudes and that the only way we could avoid punishment beatings was to find alternatives. I agree fully with that. We need to work with the community in the interim period when we do not have an acceptable policing service in order to ensure that the community has a say in finding non-violent means of dealing with this matter.
Monica McWilliams talked about the multi-agency approach. We have been working on addressing the policing deficit and spearheading a multi-agency approach. We are working with all statutory agencies to try to eradicate punishment beatings — west Belfast being a good example of that.
I will not bother to comment on most of what Sammy Wilson said. He, like some others in the Chamber, was not listening when I said that I did not condone punishment beatings and that my party does not condone them. He also talked about a one-party police state. We have good experience of that because that is what we have had for the past 80 years — a one-party police state controlled and abused by the Unionist community. There has been plenty of experience of that.
John Kelly talked about the lack of a fair and impartial policing service. I have addressed that. There has certainly been a huge gap in proper policing, which has led to this situation.
Eileen Bell was definitely suffering from "rose-coloured spectacles" syndrome, for there has been plenty of evidence of international criticism of the RUC, including criticism from the United Nations rapporteur. The RUC has been indicted by many credible organisations, both at home and worldwide, and has a horrendous record of human rights abuses. That speaks for itself.
As for what Alex Attwood said about my Colleague John Kelly, Mr Kelly said that punishment beatings are wrong and have no place in any civilised society. Unfortunately, in the absence of fair and impartial policing for all, it is a reality that so-called punishment attacks will continue until we eradicate the policing deficit.
Sinn Féin has been working incredibly hard on the policing issue since the Good Friday negotiations, and indeed long before that. Today our leadership is in London, working to bring about the new beginning in policing that our community not only wants but needs. Nobody is saying that the Nationalist/Republican community does not need or want a policing service that will work for it. We have to create an accountable policing service acceptable to all people. No one can refute our efforts to support non-violent solutions to try to solve this problem. Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: This has been a sombre debate at times. I am very pleased that my party was able to get the motion onto the Floor of the House and that we have had a chance to deal with an issue that quite rightly concerns anyone who is interested in getting the people who carry out these evil, atrocious and brutal attacks made amenable to the law. I regret that the SDLP does not want to make those people amenable to the law and will therefore not be supporting this motion. It is unfortunate that it has not been able to pick up the gauntlet, to face the challenge and to run with those of us who want to see people made amenable to the law for their illegal actions.
Like most people, I am disgusted that Sinn Féin attempted to bring in a wrecking amendment on this issue. What was the purpose of its amendment? Its purpose was to take the spotlight away from its own guilty, blood-soaked hands on this issue.
In reality, Sinn Féin does not want to be held accountable for the actions which are engaged in by its organisation and which that organisation orders to take place. Sinn Féin, in its amendment, wants to blame everybody except those who carry out the punishment beatings. It wants to blame the Housing Executive, the Government agencies, the RUC — everyone but the man who is swinging the baseball bat. The real responsibility lies with its paramilitary organisation. Unless Sinn Féin faces up to that responsibility — and unless the Government accept their responsibility to take on those men of violence — we will be back, in a matter of months, to debate the increase in paramilitary attacks that will have continued to take place throughout our country.
This debate on punishment attacks is marked by the fact that, over the last few months, terrorists have maximised the number of punishment attacks and the level of terrorism. Meanwhile, those people and party members associated with the Belfast Agreement have taken a minimalist approach. They say as little on it as they can get away with; they condemn it quietly; they neither raise the issue nor allow it to make headlines. They take a minimalist approach that has served as a nod and a wink to the terrorists to carry on with their maximalist approach, which sees approximately five paramilitary attacks taking place in our country every week. This approach causes widows to be harmed, children maimed, and people’s lives to be destroyed.
The reality, which is made clear in Prof Colin Knox’s report, is that those parties which could do most to stop the beatings are doing the least. We have seen an example of that in this Chamber today. The parties that could stop it will not do so. They want to blame everyone except their own foot soldiers, and they will not take the measures that they should be taking to switch off violence. The evidence of that is very clear. During the first presidential visit to Northern Ireland by Bill Clinton they were able to switch off the violence for a certain number of days and then switch it back on. The Chief Constable told us, at the time, that they were able to change the cycle of the violence and, on the basis of a command from an IRA officer, to switch the scene of an attack from Belfast to Londonderry. They were also able, at the command of an officer, to switch an attack from one in which people were shot in the knees to one in which they were shot in the elbows. They have a direct say in these attacks, and the evidence is clear that these people could stop this violence if they wanted to.
Punishment attacks are the stock-in-trade of the paramilitary organisations, so I almost recognise that they will be hypocritical about this issue. We take their hypocrisy as read. By bringing this motion before the House, we have also pointed the finger at the British Government and the Executive for failing to take action where it is possible to deliver on these issues. The Government’s lackadaisical approach of seeing no evil and hearing no evil must be condemned. It is deplorable that such a policy should condemn 15-year-old children to the most ritualised, summary, abusive regime in the British Isles — and that is what is happening.
In this politically correct world we are right to condemn child abusers and find ways to prevent and convict them. Many Members would do a 15-minute stint in front of a camera to help bring in measures to prevent a child abuser. Those same people do not seem to want to run to the cameras to condemn the paramilitaries with the same voracity with which they condemn other issues of political correctness. There is a deafening silence from those people. The media cannot find them when they need to hear these people’s condemnation.
During the debate we heard from the Women’s Coalition, and it was clear from the comments of the party spokesperson that she had not read the entire report. I note that the Member quoted from the summary of the report. If she had been in the Chamber during the whole debate she would have known more about the report and the extensive work that was carried out.
Prof Knox and Dr Monaghan presented, in just one section of their report, more than 25 specific measures to deal with violence. A quite deliberate attempt is being made by some to ignore the fact that there is a way to deal with this violence in an effective manner.
There is a way to deal effectively with this violence. The fact is that the political parties in the Government know who are behind these attacks, yet it is probable that the issue has not even been put on the agenda of the Executive Committee. You can understand why there would be very uncomfortable shifting on seats in room 21 if the issue of paramilitary attacks happened to be on the agenda of the Executive of this place. The Minister of Education could name and shame the people who carry out those attacks if he really wanted to. He could indicate people in his own organisation who carry out those attacks, but he does not do it. Perhaps that is because those people are too close to his family home.
The misnamed Chief Whip of Sinn Féin/IRA could take the opportunity to reveal to the House the name of the chief bludgeoner for Belfast IRA company if he really wanted to. But, of course, his party does not want to name and shame people; that might be too close to home. Instead of getting his people in this Assembly to put forward wrecking motions, Mr Adams could, if he wanted to, bring forward motions or use the privilege of this House to name and shame those behind the attacks in Belfast. Perhaps those names are too close to his home for comfort also.
In reality, Mr Deputy Speaker — and I use the words carefully — brothers, nephews, brothers-in-arms of that organisation represented in this House are behind these attacks. That is the reality; that is what the police say, and perhaps we should take the opportunity and the privileges afforded to us in this House to name and shame those individuals. My Colleague came close to it. Perhaps that is called for because it is clear from the comments we have heard from members of the Nationalist community that they have no shame. They have no shame in what they are saying; if they had any shame, they would be supporting this motion.
Alban Maginness’s contribution was more disappointing than normal. Once again he has washed his hands of any responsibility. In fact, I almost heard the creak in his neck when he looked over his shoulder at Sinn Féin and the electoral responsibilities that will be facing him. Those parties take a view that is quite clearly political. They have lost sight of justice, decency and truth on this issue. Paramilitarism and paramilitary attacks have soared. It is easy to conclude from Prof Knox’s report that the agreement has failed to defeat paramilitarism in this country in any way, and those who let the prisoners out of jail are responsible. The increase in these attacks is the predictable outcome of prisoner releases. We must be crazy if we thought that the release of paramilitary prisoners would not see an increase in violence on our streets. It clearly has.
No, this motion goes right to the heart of the realities that confront us today. The cancer at the heart of these institutions — putting gunmen into government — establishes a Mafia society and erodes the very fabric of the society that we wish to live in. Indeed, it also turns the vast majority of democratic, law-abiding, decent citizens off taking responsibility and seeing this matter carried through to an ultimate and lawful conclusion.
Many of the comments made to the House by Ms Courtney and Mr "not so legal eagle" Attwood are misguided. The Belfast Agreement does not — to use Mr Attwood’s words — offer "our future best hope". To Ms Courtney I say that the Good Friday Agreement is not "the only means of getting rid of these so-called paramilitary attacks". Prof Knox has presented cogent evidence that the Good Friday Agreement is failing.
The Good Friday Agreement is failing to stop these violent attacks. Prof Knox’s report is thrown down as a gauntlet to us all. We have a responsibility to pick it up, vote and demonstrate our abhorrence of these paramilitary attacks. Those who fail to do so will show the community that they do not condemn paramilitary violence — they condone it.
Question,
Main question put.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 48; Noes 14.
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Eileen Bell, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Norman Boyd, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Seamus Close, Wilson Clyde, Fred Cobain, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, David Ervine, David Ford, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, John Gorman, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, Robert McCartney, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Sean Neeson, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, Patrick Roche, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Bairbre de Brún, Pat Doherty, David Ervine, Michelle Gildernew, Billy Hutchinson, John Kelly, Alex Maskey, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
This Assembly notes with grave concern the contents of the ‘Informal Criminal Justice Systems in Northern Ireland’ report on punishment beatings by paramilitary organisations; deplores and condemns the Government’s inadequate response to the report; and calls on the Government to bring forward measures to ensure that those responsible are made amenable to the law.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order. Perhaps you can help me, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thought that when a Member wished to abstain he or she had to go through both Lobbies to register the abstention.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I do not think that is necessary.

Mr Robert McCartney: At the beginning of this debate a number of people expressed disquiet that Back-Benchers were limited in their speeches to five minutes. Mr Deputy Speaker, you advisedly told the House that as some 30 Members were listed to speak, the Business Committee had decided to limit Back-Benchers’ speeches to five minutes. In the event, not all the time was taken up. I understand that this was because Members put their names on a list, on which you and the Business Committee formed your decision, and then withdrew their names. In effect, those who withdrew their names denied other Members the opportunity to deal with certain issues in this debate.
I do not always agree with Mr Billy Hutchinson, but he made the point that a significant part of the debate was not only about stating a problem but also about advising on what might be done about that problem. The time limitation meant that many aspects, such as those he mentioned, were ruled out. You should give direction to those Members who put down their names to speak and then withdraw.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Thank you, Mr McCartney, for raising that point. You are correct. A number of people withdrew after indicating that they wished to speak. Also, some of those who spoke did not do so for the full five minutes. Members should note this point for future reference.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order. Will the Deputy Speaker look at how many times this has happened before? To my knowledge it has happened on two other occasions. People put down their names, and the debate was limited. Then they pulled out. Those who wanted to speak did not get to speak, and those speaking, and entitled to more time by the ordinary rules of debate, were cut back. Those who do this consistently should be told that their names cannot be taken unless they give an undertaking that they are going to speak. At Westminster when you put down your name, you stick to what you say.

Mr Donovan McClelland: You are quite right. It does create a problem, and I am sure that it will be referred to the Business Committee and discussed at great length at the next meeting.

On-Course Track Betting: Employment Protection

Mr P J Bradley: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to bring forward legislative proposals to provide employment protection rights for those, directly or indirectly, employed in respect of on-course track betting.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
As I explained in my opening remarks to my motion of 29 Novemebr 2000, which called for the introduction of legislation to permit Sunday on-course betting, the outcome sought in relation to the overall proposal falls within the remit of two ministerial Departments. For that very reason I submitted this motion to the Business Office simultaneously with the one passed in this House in November.
The purpose of this proposal is to address any fears or concerns those employed, directly or indirectly, in the racing industry may have regarding the pending introduction of Sunday on-course betting. Acceptance of this proposal will also set aside any concerns that elected representatives may have regarding the level of protection available to those who, for religious or family reasons, cannot work on Sundays. I was conscious from the outset that legalising Sunday on-course betting would raise legitimate concerns for both employees and ancillary workers affected by such legislative reform.
All persons could be legally safeguarded by the introduction of adequate employment protection rights similar to those available to workers in England and Wales — pursuant to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Such legislative measures could protect those I have already referred to — employees who, for religious or family-related reasons, cannot work on Sundays. The fact that an Act is already in place in England and Wales simplifies my role in proposing the motion, and, no doubt, it will also prove to be of immense assistance to the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment when he commences the setting up of similar legisaltion for Northern Ireland.
For the record — to give Members some indication of the level of protection provided by the Act (Chapter 40) — I shall highlight the relevant provisions. Schedule 8, which relates to section 20, deals with "Rights of Betting Workers as Respects Sunday Working". Paragraph 2 of the same schedule defines "protected betting worker". Paragraph 4 deals with "Notice of objection to Sunday working". Paragraph 5 defines "Opted-out betting worker". Paragraph 6 defines "notice period". Paragraph 7 deals with "Right not to be dismissed for refusing Sunday Work".
Paragraph 9 deals with dismissals regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 7 or 8. Paragraph 10 deals with the right of the employee not to suffer detriment for refusing to work on Sundays. Paragraph 11 outlines the employer’s duty and the employee’s statutory right in relation to Sunday betting work. Paragraph 12 deals with the effect of rights on contracts of employment. Paragraphs 13 to 21 deal with many important issues, such as transitional modifications relating to maternity cases, dismissals on grounds of assertion of statutory rights, dismissal procedures agreements, and conciliation.
As I said earlier, the fact that such an Act is in place elsewhere in these islands, having been passed by Parliament, is an assurance that comparable workers in England and Wales are fully protected. I am confident that if the applicable sections of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 were to be used by those responsible for drafting the Assembly’s legislation, we could fully protect our employees in matters pertaining to Sunday work.
I therefore propose the motion in the clear understanding that the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, Dr Farren, can introduce protective legislation for all grades of workers, similar to that applying in England and Wales.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Late last year the Assembly passed a motion proposed by the instigator of this motion. That motion, back in November, dealt with the extension of betting. When, and if, this change does occur — and it is, of course, an open question as to what changes may occur in Great Britain and what implications they may have for the industry in Northern Ireland — it will have implications for the working conditions of workers in the betting industry in Northern Ireland. Hence this motion today.
Among the most relevant previous pieces of legislation are the Sunday Trading Act 1994 in Great Britain, and its equivalent here, the Shops (Sunday Trading, &c.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. The crucial distinction — which the mover of the motion has referred to — is that there is legislation in Great Britain which includes the betting industry, whereas our piece of legislation does not.
These various pieces of legislation attempt, within their differing remits, to establish that those workers who find themselves in activities that for the first time involve Sunday working will be given protection. In other words, they will not find themselves compelled to work on Sunday, and they will not be dismissed if they refuse so to work.
I assume — or perhaps now know from what he has said — that Mr Bradley’s concern is that such provisions in the Sunday Trading Act in Great Britain and the Shops (Sunday Trading, &c.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 should now be extended to include the betting and gambling industry in Northern Ireland. If this is done — if the situation arises where it needs to be done — the overarching European Union Directives will also be relevant, especially in the area of working time. In normal circumstances these limit the maximum working week to under 48 hours. Some Assembly Members might find a total working week limited to under 48 hours a rather novel concept, but that is now the general provision, which the UK, along with other EU states, has subscribed to. That will have implications for the issue of working on Sunday.
As Chairperson of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee, I will endorse the motion.
I will conclude on a more personal note, without wearing my Chairperson’s hat. I opposed Mr Bradley’s initial motion because of the implications that it had with regard to the working conditions that the Assembly is considering today. Of course, it is entirely right that if Sunday on-course track betting is allowed that the Assembly should seek to regulate it and provide adequate employment protection. My impression of the English and Welsh experience since Sunday trading was liberalised is that it is impossible to provide complete legal safeguards to protect workers who, for whatever reasons — family, social or conscience — cannot work on Sundays. Given that, I still hold that the ideal position is that this difficulty should not be entered into in the first place. I support this motion subject to that proviso.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, A LeasCheann Comhairle. I also support the motion. As Mr Birnie stated, it dates back to the legislative change in 1997, which did not include those who worked in the betting industry but did apply to shop opening hours and the hours that employees should work.
If there is going to be Sunday racing in Down Royal, it is timely that provision should be made in law to ensure that no one is penalised or forced to work on Sundays. Adam Ingram said at the time
"I know there are many people who have demonstrated a desire for shopping on Sunday".
On that, one could equally say "for racing on Sunday". He went on to say
"the new legislation provides freedom of choice, enabling people to choose for themselves how they spend their Sundays. I ask those with concerns about the relaxation of Sunday trading" —
or racing —
"restrictions to remember the archaic and inconsistent state of the present law which required urgent replacement."
He continued
"I am very conscious of the need to protect the rights of shop workers" —
one could say betting workers —
"who do not want to work on Sundays. The new protection rights for shop workers" —
that is, betting workers —
"contained in the Order will do just that and they apply irrespective of age, length of service or hours of work".
I am not going to trawl through everything, but the legislation goes on to discuss working times, including travelling when it is part of the job, working lunches and job-related training. That is all included in the legislation introduced by Adam Ingram.
The one omission that I noted is the issue of pay for those who work on Sundays. I was at Leopardstown last Sunday, where I saw Istabraq restore Ireland’s confidence for the Champion Hurdle at Cheltenham. I spoke to a few bookmakers at the racecourse who said that their clerks were possibly the best paid people in Ireland. Therefore we are not talking about bookies’ clerks, rather about the ancillary staff who work in the tote, catering and stewarding.
I say to P J Bradley that we should put down a marker not just about working conditions and the issues of forcing people to work on Sundays or whether they are penalised for not working on Sundays but also about the type of wage structure that will exist for those people who work on Sundays.
Thank you, A LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I support the motion in the name of my Colleague. However, it strikes me that surely there should be employment protection laws which act as an umbrella to cover everyone. We live in a society that contains Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews.
Forcing a Christian to work on a Sunday is no worse than forcing a Jew to work on a Saturday. We are now in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society and, overall, our employment laws should reflect that. I know that there are anomalies that come out from time to time, but we should try to be reflective of society as a whole.
Mr John Kelly raised an important point about the working conditions of staff. Does that also include night-time racing? There is more and more betting from foreign countries. Are people going to be made to work shifts? We should not have to deal with employment protection every time a motion comes forward with legislative proposals to provide employment protection rights for anyone. We should have employment protection rights for absolutely everyone in our society.

Dr Sean Farren: The motion calls on me to bring forward legislative proposals to provide employment protection rights for those directly or indirectly employed in on-course track betting. In case there is any misunderstanding, given the terms of the motion, I should emphasise that the people involved in this activity are in no sense without employment rights at present. They have the same employment rights as other employees. It is very clear from the remarks of the Member who moved this motion, and those of other Members, that the motion seeks to ensure that such workers should have extra protection with regard to Sunday working in the event of this Assembly making on-course betting on a Sunday legal. That is protection, in particular, from being compelled against their wishes to work on Sundays.
The question of the legalising of on-course betting on a Sunday is a matter for the Minister for Social Development. I understand that he has noted and is considering the debate and the outcome of the debate that took place on this general issue last December. If and when a decision is made to legalise on-course betting on a Sunday, I would be obliged and willing to introduce employment protection measures in tandem with any proposed legislation of that kind.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I am sorry that I was not here for the first part of the debate. When the issue of protecting people because of their religious convictions was discussed in the House of Commons, many promises were made — for instance, that Sunday would not be treated as an ordinary working day. Those promises have all been broken. Can the Minister assure us that if people have to work on a Sunday and it is against their convictions to do so, they will be adequately protected? Many people have had almost a revolution in their family, because Sunday was the time when all the family was present. Because of workloads, they now cannot even have a proper family reunion on a Sunday.
If we are going to have Sunday working, then it should be recognised as a special day. Of course, I take the point — as I heard on the television — about other religions and their special days. The honour should be kept that was given to them originally on this sort of legislation.

Dr Sean Farren: I assure the Member for North Antrim that I will ensure that the measures prescribed in any legislation of the kind that we are anticipating are enforced. I trust that he is not suggesting that just because British Ministers do not keep their word a Colleague representing the same constituency as himself is not expected to keep his regarding measures contained in any legislation for which he is responsible. I assure the Member that the measures will be implemented in the spirit and the letter of any such legislation.
The sort of protection involved would be the same as that which is now available to shop workers under the Sunday trading legislation. An on-course betting worker would have the right not to be dismissed for refusal to work on Sundays and not to suffer any detriment, such as denial of promotion or training opportunities, for that reason. Those rights would be enforceable by way of a complaint to an industrial tribunal, and I think that underlines the assurance that I have just given.
It would also be appropriate to ensure that on-course betting workers would be able, without suffering detriment, to give their employer notice that they wish to opt out of a clause in their contract that requires them to work on Sundays.
Protections such as those — and others as detailed by Mr Bradley in moving the motion —might have to be considered, and that would be necessary, fair and just. I would be prepared to introduce those protections if Sunday on-course betting were made legal in Northern Ireland.
My Colleague Mr O’Connor mentioned other days apart from Sunday that are regarded as sacred by people of different faiths. He said that there may be a case for considering the rights of those people whose faiths observe those days as sacred. There may well be a case for our examining the employment legislation with regard to such matters.
However, with regard to the motion, I assure Members that when it is necessary for us to take action we will do so in such a way as to provide adequate, fair and comprehensive protection to the workers who will be involved.

Mr P J Bradley: As with my proposal, I will be brief in my winding-up speech. I thank the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Minister for his encouraging words; I also thank the Chairperson of the Committee and the other Members who share my views on employment protection. It is encouraging to hear that everyone shared those views.
I remind Members that the previous Administration, under the then Ministers Ingram and Worthington, carried out a consultation process on all matters pertaining to the proposal to introduce Sunday on-course betting. The exercise also sought opinion regarding the rights of betting workers if on-course betting were permitted.
The report which followed the consultation process gave some very revealing information, particularly paragraph 4.7.2 headed "To Provide Employment Protection Rights for Betting Workers Employed on Tracks if On-Course Betting on Sundays is Permitted". There was a poor response to that section of the pre-report survey. Only nine respondents were identified as being in the "broadly content" category. Those included people with track and horse interests, bookmaking interests, people associated with the Law Society and those described as church/religious-type bodies.
So as not to mislead, the report explains that the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland committee on public morals has indicated that employment protection is the absolute minimum required when Sunday on-course betting becomes a reality. In the category headed "Some reservations/suggestions", only six returns are recorded. None of the six make any suggestions. Their submissions expressed a number of fears, including possible conflict and injustice between employers and staff, as well as pressures on employees to work on Sunday. One submission found it hard to accept the idea that there should be no detriment to a person who refused to work on Sunday. Fortunately, all the fears expressed in this section can be easily addressed in the proposed legislation.
I am pleased to inform the House that in the third category, set aside to record unfavourable comments, not one objection is recorded. I repeat: there were no unfavourable comments. This significant fact alone demonstrates that the general public treated the consultation process with a degree of apathy. As I look around, I think that that apathy is reflected in this House also. I believe that many also demonstrated a level of tolerance, recognising that others may have, and are entitled to have, a different outlook regarding the subject, and that there is a need to adapt to meet other attitudes.
I conclude with the same lines with which I ended my opening remarks. I propose this motion on the clear understanding that protective legislation for all grades of workers, similar to that which applies in England and Wales, must be introduced prior to, or simultaneously with, the changes regarding on-course betting approved by the Assembly on 29 November 2000. I fully appreciate that the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, like his ministerial Colleague, the Minister for Social Development, who is dealing with the successful November proposal, has a very demanding workload that is not exactly lessened by a motion such as this. I believe, however, that both are fully aware of the benefit that my original motion, and this necessary follow-on proposal, will bring to the overall economy of the area.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to bring forward legislative proposals to provide employment-protection rights for those, directly or indirectly, employed in respect of on-course track betting.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Madam Deputy Speaker.]

Sectarian Attacks (Larne)

Mr Sean Neeson: I am raising this important and serious issue because of the deteriorating situation in Larne. I am sure that Members will join me in condemning the sectarian attacks on three homes in Larne last night.
It is important in this kind of situation that people recognise the problems in the area. As elected representatives we should provide leadership. In raising the issue, I recognise that other areas of Northern Ireland such as Ballymena, Coleraine and Ballymoney have suffered from sectarian attacks in recent months. We must recognise that there is a major problem. Since October, over 30 pipe bomb attacks have occurred throughout Northern Ireland, quite a number of them in the Larne area.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right for a Member to quote statistics that are not necessarily true? Can he give a breakdown of those attacks? It is not true that most of the 30 pipe bomb attacks occurred in Larne.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order.

Mr Sean Neeson: I wish that when people quote me they would do so accurately. I said that a considerable number of them have been in the Larne area.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Quantify it.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr Sean Neeson: The statistics I am using have come from the RUC.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Quantify it.

Mr Sean Neeson: At the outset of the debate I appealed to Members to give leadership on this issue. This sort of activity by the Member is not going to help the situation. I want a reasoned debate to see how we, as elected Members of the Assembly, can give leadership on this important issue.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that it is lack of leadership on my part to ask the Member to quantify what he is saying.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order.

Mr Sean Neeson: The intention was to have this debate on a reasoned and sensible level, and for people not to get carried away. It is for them to provide the leadership, which the community is seeking elected representatives to provide. You all know that pipe bombs can kill and maim. Fortunately, there have been no serious injuries from the use of pipe bombs, whether in Larne or elsewhere, over the recent months.
What is happening in Larne is a very complex issue. As someone who worked in the town for quite a considerable time, and who keeps in regular contact with constituents there, I know the complexities of the situation.
RUC statistics show that last year the police stated that there were 76 sectarian attacks in Larne. In reality, as we all know, there were probably a lot more because of the number of attacks that were not reported. There have been attacks on Catholic and Protestant homes. Looking at the statistics, I am sure that everyone will agree that the majority of them have been on the Catholic community there.
Whether they are pipe bombs, petrol bombs or bricks being thrown through windows — as happened last night — the aim is to terrorise individuals and the whole community. In most of the attacks that have taken place, whether they are against Catholic homes or Protestant homes, the motivation is sectarian hatred. It is a sad fact of life that that is permeating society throughout Northern Ireland at the present time. Very often the targets are the elderly, the very young or single parents. There is a deep fear throughout the community in Larne and elsewhere at the present time.
The very fact that we have the Army back on the streets of Larne indicates how serious the existing situation is. The sad thing — and this comes from someone who has worked in Larne and represents the Larne area — is that the image of Larne has been tarnished at home and abroad. When I raised the issue of the attacks with the Prime Minister last Thursday he was very well acquainted with what was happening in the area. This Thursday I and members of my party will be meeting the Chief Constable to discuss Larne and the issues that exist in other parts of Northern Ireland.
The bottom line is that the rule of law must be restored in the streets of Larne and in other areas. The rule of law is breaking down in many parts of Northern Ireland for many different reasons. A big part of it is the whole question of sectarianism, whether it is Catholic sectarianism or Protestant sectarianism. While it is very much a rule of law issue, the community itself has a very important part to play.
The community must recognise that it has a responsibility, although we must bear in mind the fear that prevents many people not only from reporting attacks but from giving information to the legitimate security services.
There was a series of sectarian attacks in Larne and throughout east Antrim in the 1970s. Indeed, I was almost a victim of a sectarian bomb attack on St Comgall’s club in Larne. But for the grace of God and the fact that only the detonator and not the whole bomb went off, I would not be here today. Nonetheless, throughout the troubles Larne was a mixed housing area; by and large, there were no ghettos. Now, however, there are increasing concerns that people on both sides are trying to create such ghettos. That is not acceptable and more cross-community initiatives are needed to stop it.
I am not saying that no such initiatives are happening; the building of the new YMCA youth club was a cross-community effort. This morning, the rector of St Cedma’s told me about the Close Encounter event taking place in Larne this weekend in another attempt to defuse the situation. I also welcome the Wave Trauma Centre’s initiative to help victims in Larne, regardless of the community from which they come. The Larne community must stand shoulder to shoulder and isolate those who are carrying out the attacks, but the people need our leadership.
One of the saddest things is that condemnation of the attacks has almost become a ritual. There is a need for new initiatives, and I hope for some worthwhile suggestions from Members today. I also want the Assembly to recognise that there are areas of social deprivation in Larne and that such areas suffer from all the associated social problems. The people need our help in many different ways, and we should provide it. Looking at what has happened in Northern Ireland in recent years, I feel that we can make progress only if people are prepared to talk to one another — one community to another and one individual to another. That could restore the normality that the people of Larne want.
Despite the apparent success of FG Wilson, new investment is still required in the borough of Larne. The six elected Members for the area have demonstrated that we can work together on economic and investment issues. I thank the many people who are working behind the scenes. They have my support, and that of the Assembly. I have tried to approach Larne’s problems in a reasoned and balanced manner. As elected representatives, we must help the people of Larne.

Mr Ken Robinson: I speak on this particular topic with some sadness. Any attack upon persons or property deserves to be condemned. I condemn all the attacks in Larne, as I would condemn them in any part of my constituency or in any part of Northern Ireland.
In doing so, I am reflecting the views and opinions of all decent, right-thinking people in our community who want to live in an atmosphere of real peace. I trust that by engaging in this measured and responsible debate — and I thank the hon Member for starting off in that vein — we are not becoming pawns in any overt or covert considerations driven by party political necessity.
I have listened and watched in sadness as opportunities to provide positive leadership in this sorry situation were missed. Instead, we have witnessed a slow slide into a process dictated by a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you tell a child often enough that he is a bad boy, he will become a bad boy.
In common with certain other provincial towns such as Ballymena, Coleraine and Portadown, it almost seems that Larne has been selected for a process of communal character assassination. I leave Members to ponder for themselves how and why that process may have evolved.
Larne was — and continues to be — an industrious, prosperous and pleasant town. In common with all towns, Larne has had its problems. However, the people of Larne, following in the tradition of their forefathers, did not sit down and bemoan their lot. Instead, they sought to challenge the spectre of unemployment by accepting the need to refocus the local economy.
A forward-looking borough council and an active business and community sector sought ways to retrain their workforce. Partnership boards, community groups and agencies such as Larne Enterprises Development Company (LEDCOM) and the East Antrim Institute for Further and Higher Education have provided positive approaches to meet these challenges for their whole community.
It is a matter of regret to those who have the best long-term interests of Larne and its people at heart that when the media were treated to a guided tour of the borough, the spotlight fell on a small number of rather nasty and negative incidents rather than on the positive features of the town.
However, as is the way with media interest, the failure to accentuate the positive is matched by the ability to magnify the negative aspects of a situation.
Instead of preparing papers for perusal by powers in a neighbouring state — a state, which incidentally, has a significant number of problems with urban crime and violence on its own doorstep — would it not have been in the interests of all the inhabitants of Larne to seek a united approach with the MLAs of East Antrim and the representatives of Larne? That would have enabled people to identify the real causes for the upsurge in antisocial behaviour in the town. It could be achieved by identifying those in the community who could influence people for the common good. By co-ordinating agencies, we could bring confidence and support to those who have felt uneasy and insecure, thereby isolating the real troublemakers and providing the RUC with the unqualified and total support that the force needed and deserved as it attempted to solve the problems for the benefit of all.
It would be a good start if those who are inclined "in foreign parts to roam" — as the song says — could speak to those a little closer to home. It is evident from moves today that all East Antrim MLAs are willing to be proactive and constructive in solving this problem, and I congratulate my Colleague Mr Beggs for instigating a process today which I hope will aid that work. We need to have a co-ordinated community solution, and we need to find it quickly so that the town of Larne can once again focus on the task of attracting tourists and investors. We must be able to demonstrate that the traditional warm welcome which the gateway of Ulster has always shown to visitors is still there.

Mr Danny O'Connor: First of all, let us not try and brush things under the carpet. There are problems in Larne, and they need to be dealt with by all of us. We all have a role to play. There were three more incidents last night. Two Catholic families and one Protestant family had their windows broken. Regardless of who they are, no victim should be regarded as worse than any other victim. These people have had their lives turned upside-down by thuggish elements. It might be a stone or a bottle that comes through their window tonight, but they will sit there wondering what it will be tomorrow night.
We can talk about all the good things — Larne Enterprises Development Company, the council initiatives, and all the rest — but in reality there is what Archbishop Eames termed "a culture of lawlessness" in areas throughout Northern Ireland. Larne is certainly one of those areas.
Mr Ken Robinson talked about selecting an area for some sort of assassination of its reputation. In the 1970s there was a Catholic school in Greenisland that had 400 pupils. It closed down in 1992 with 27 pupils. Two years ago — a week after I was elected to this august body — one estate in Carrickfergus was systematically ethnically cleansed of its Catholic population. Now we are into Larne. There is no accident. Gary McMichael spoke on ‘Evening Extra’ last Thursday about elements in the Ulster Democratic Party being disaffected with the way things were going in places such as Larne, Ballymoney and Coleraine. Surprise, surprise. We see where all the incidents that make the news are happening.
There is a problem, and it has to be tackled. It is not just the UDA. There are people from the Protestant community whose homes are being attacked. I deplore those attacks. I want to focus on the need for more police action. We have been told about the number of police officers available and that there are extra patrols. There are, however, no arrests and no convictions. I speak as one whose home has been attacked on multiple occasions. I have given evidence in court, only to see the perpetrators go away with a community service order. The police and the criminal justice system must stand up for victims. Where are the 800 Special Branch officers? What are they doing? For 30 years they could contain the problem in Northern Ireland. Now they cannot contain what is going on in Larne, Ballymoney and Coleraine.
We need to see a different type of policing. We need to see a political decision made by the Secretary of State that this whole culture of lawlessness — drug dealing, the manufacture of counterfeit goods, money laundering and extortion — will be tackled head-on. We can all stick our heads in the sand, or we can face up to our responsibilities by calling for community action, and by calling for people to report what they know to the police. There are people in the community who know what is happening, and they have a moral responsibility to take that information to the police so that they can do the job they are there to do.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I will.
Mention has been made of the Army on the streets of Larne. They were outside my house at 2.30 this morning. They went past again at 3.10 am. They would not be there if they were not needed, and I ask the Government for action. Under the Good Friday Agreement, people were guaranteed the right to freely choose their own place of residence and the right to live free from sectarian harassment. In human rights legislation —

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Danny O'Connor: May I have half a minute? This is very important to the people I represent. Both Catholics and Protestants need to know that they are safe in their beds at night.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am sorry, Mr O’Connor. Your time is up.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I must say from the outset that I am appalled at this motion. It is the last thing that Larne needs. It would have better behoved Mr Neeson to get the six MLAs for the area to sit down together behind closed doors and talk to each other. Then we could have come up with a formula for tackling this issue instead of bringing it again to the attention of the media. There are people in Larne who are hurting. I want to state publicly that there is no justification for the terrorising or intimidation of any human being in Larne or anywhere else in Northern Ireland, be they Protestant or Catholic, black or white, Hindu or Jew. Everyone has the right to live peacefully and to be dealt with equally under the law.
Larne is no different from any other part of Northern Ireland. Mr Neeson gave us the statistics, but I want him to carry those statistics through. Let us look at those figures. Mr Neeson talked about 76 attacks in Larne. Fifty-three attacks have been on Roman Catholics, and 35 on Protestants. Members may notice that that does not add up to 76. However, there could have been four or five people in those houses. That is how the figures add up. There is an imbalance here. There is intimidation, but it is against both sides of the community. Do not try to make out that it is any worse than in any other place. Everyone suffers when there is a breakdown of law and order. We only have to look throughout Northern Ireland to see that, stemming from the Belfast Agreement, there has been a general breakdown in law and order.
I call upon the RUC to implement zero tolerance when dealing with people who harass, petrol bomb, firebomb and intimidate others. There is absolutely no room for intimidation in any society. The majority of decent people in Larne reject the lawlessness of the few and support their neighbours, regardless of creed or colour. It is time for the silent majority in Larne to speak out. We know what happened in Nazi Germany when the majority turned its back. We do not want that to happen in Northern Ireland. We definitely do not want it to happen in Larne.
The people of Larne need to realise that they have to come forward to the forces of law and order and report anything, no matter how insignificant it may seem. It will help the police to build up a dossier and bring these people to book.
I have been appalled at some of the media coverage on Larne. Ulster Television is the worst offender. A programme on UTV last Friday evening featured an interview with a gentleman from the Seacourt estate. Watchers were led to believe that it was impossible for Roman Catholics to shop in Larne or go to the cinema. That afternoon I had walked the streets of Larne and was stopped by many members of the Roman Catholic community thanking me for my leadership — and they were shopping merrily in Larne. They were able to go into any shop that I entered; they were able to buy their groceries where I bought mine.
I call on the media to realise that Larne is no worse than any other town in Northern Ireland. In Coleraine last year there were 19 pipe bombs; in Larne there were two. In Coleraine there were 18 petrol bombs; in Larne there were 10.

Ms Jane Morrice: Please draw your remarks to a close.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: In Coleraine there were seven intimidations; in Larne there were 15. In Coleraine there were 13 firearm incidents; in Larne there were three. Let us have balance and the truth. Larne is a good town in which the majority of residents despise those who are creating havoc for a number of people.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. It was interesting that Sean Neeson and Danny O’Connor both compared events in Larne in 1970 to what is happening in the present phase of sectarianism. It is not good enough to talk about this as being antisocial behaviour. It is not — this is a concerted, orchestrated attack on the Catholics of Larne, which extends to Coleraine and Ballymena. Roger Hutchinson provides figures on how many pipe bombs there were in Larne, Coleraine and Ballymena and says that Larne did not have that many. Even one pipe bomb in Larne is sufficient reason for concern.
People have spoken about members of the Protestant community in Larne being attacked, yet it is the Nationalist community that has borne the brunt of those attacks. There were 150 attacks on Catholics in the Larne area before Christmas last year. This year, those attacks are not abating but increasing, and there is a greater degree of indifference to what happens to the victims of those attacks. There is greater arrogance among those participating in the attacks and a greater feeling that they can get away with it.
The term "ethnic cleansing" is not too strong to use in relation to what is happening in Larne and in other areas of east Antrim. It is clear that the attacks are being orchestrated by Loyalist paramilitaries in the UDA and the LVF.

Mr Ken Robinson: Will the Member give way?

Mr John Kelly: I have only five minutes.
Their intention is quite clearly to ethnically cleanse those predominately Loyalist areas in Larne, Ballymena and Coleraine. They want to drive Catholics from their homes — homes in which they have lived for generations. Those families have shown remarkable courage, resilience and determination in standing their ground. That is why I think that it was right for Mr Neeson to bring the matter to the Floor.
UTV is only reporting the news as it gets it. You cannot blame UTV, ‘the Irish News’, the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ or the BBC for what is happening. They can only report the news as it unfolds. I was listening to that man who was recently pipe bombed. He seemed a reasonable and reasoned man who did not attempt to make capital out of the attack on himself and his family, an attack that could have caused the deaths of those who were in the house at that time.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The statistics clearly prove 53 attacks on Roman Catholics and 35 on Protestants —

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Hutchinson, under which Standing Order are you raising this matter? It is not a point of order.

Mr John Kelly: I will continue and conclude.
What is happening in Larne deserves the condemnation of the Assembly. The Nationalist people in Larne deserve our support and the support of the whole community.
Mr Ken Robinson referred to visits to Dublin. The Irish Government, together with the British Government, have a distinct responsibility to support those people in Larne — people who have lived in Larne all those years and who were born and reared there. They deserve the support of all Governments and all interested people in our society.
It is quite nice to talk about Larne being the gateway to this or that. At the present time, and in the present atmosphere, Larne is being visited by a degree of sectarianism unparalleled since 1970.

Mr Norman Boyd: I am speaking not as an East Antrim MLA but as an ordinary citizen. Mr Roger Hutchinson has pointed out that Larne mirrors many parts of Northern Ireland. At the outset I want to condemn utterly the sectarian attacks in Larne on both Protestants and Roman Catholics. My condemnation of paramilitary violence, from whatever source, has been consistent.
It is regrettable that the SDLP representative for East Antrim, Mr Danny O’Connor, gives the impression on nightly media interviews that attacks are happening only against the Roman Catholic community. RUC statistics reveal that many Protestants have also been intimidated in the Larne area. Mr O’Connor refers to ethnic cleansing in the 1970s. My uncle and his family, along with many other Protestants, were ethnically cleansed from New Barnsley in the 1970s. Larne town centre was bombed twice by the Provisional IRA in the 1970s.
Some criticisms from Nationalist elected representatives against the RUC in Larne are unwarranted and unjustified. The impression has been given that no one has been apprehended for these attacks. The RUC has stated that it has arrested 25 people in connection with these criminal acts. The situation is inflamed by the type of inaccurate public statements that I have already mentioned. A minority on both sides is intent on causing division in Larne. It is hypocritical of Danny O’Connor to demand more RUC resources, including covert operations, when his party is demanding the destruction of the RUC and the full implementation of the Patten Report, which would result in a reduction of RUC resources. Will Danny O’Connor call on young Roman Catholics in Larne to join the RUC? For years the SDLP has been critical of covert security force operations, including those that have been successful in capturing ruthless terrorists. I trust that Nationalist representatives in Larne will condemn the provocative flying of the tricolour in parts of the borough.
One leading Nationalist from Larne, Bertie Shaw, is currently charged with the attempted murder of two Protestants in the town in 2000. In 1999 the same Mr Bertie Shaw, along with Gerard Rice from the Ormeau Road, organised a Nationalist protest at an Orange cultural event at the Waterfront Hall. My wife and I and others were kicked and punched on the way in to the event. Some young children were too frightened to enter the building. The SDLP did not condemn this violence against innocent Protestants celebrating their culture.
The community in Larne should assist the RUC, and all elected representatives should act responsibly and impartially. I agree with Mr Roger Hutchinson when he says that it would be better for the six East Antrim MLAs to get together rather than have a divisive debate such as this. I praise those elected representatives who have acted responsibly in condemning the violence, from whatever quarter. I regret to say that comments made by a small number of elected representatives have been irresponsible and have raised tensions in the Larne area. Everyone has the right to live in peace, free from violence and intimidation. Regrettably, the continuing implementation of the Belfast Agreement and its appeasement policy will most likely result in this violent activity spreading to other parts of Northern Ireland unless the Government demonstrate the will to defeat terrorism and restore the rule of law.
Mr Neeson says that the rule of law has broken down. This is due to the release of prisoners under the Belfast Agreement, the strengthening of paramilitary organisations through the elevation of their representatives to political office and the supply of unlimited funding for their organisations.

Mr David Ervine: To defend Larne by simply pointing out that it is not as bad as somewhere else is a poor defence. To deny that something is happening, then admit that it is happening, and then ask us all to get together to do something about something that is allegedly not happening is rather strange. Nevertheless, ethnic cleansing is nothing new in Northern Ireland. It is nothing new in our six counties of Northern Ireland in one way or another. Mr Kelly had ample opportunity to tell us of the annoyance inflicted on the Protestant community in Londonderry last evening. He did not do this.
We can all be a bit hypocritical, but the fact is that ordinary decent people are suffering. Irrespective of the political games and chicanery that people want to indulge in, if we do not do something about it as a society, some of our constituents will die. That is the unadulterated truth, and our history tells us that it will happen.
We exhort the RUC to do better. That is logical, but there comes a time when the tolerance of society is turned upon those who are absolutely intolerant. Those people do what they are doing in Larne, Coleraine, Ballymena or Ballymoney, whichever side of the community they come from, because they think they have a right to act like this. If you happen to be in the Unionist community, for example, you might feel that you are the last bastion of defence and say "I’ll do something about it."
How many ex-prisoners are involved in this terrible trouble in Larne? None, or very few. Yet our leaders cry foul. Ludicrous stuff comes from the mouths of politicians; they tell us that we have been sold out, that the other side is winning. When people are given the impression that they are locked into a zero-sum battle, then, with a perverted sense of duty, some of them may feel that they have a legitimate cause for action. It is called populism.
We are told that those who advocate the demolition of the Good Friday Agreement perhaps have their own little part to play. Nevertheless, their campaign and their threat to scupper it all by walking out create a constant hype and fear in the minds of the Unionist community. Those who fired the bomb at Ebrington barracks this morning and those who were swiftest to condemn it have the same goal. They both want the destruction of the only opportunity that this society has ever had to live in peace in my lifetime, and perhaps the only opportunity that my children and my children’s children will have.
I have an affinity with Larne. I lived there as a child — those were my days of innocence, and perhaps Larne’s days of innocence. Today, even while they talk about the suffering of innocent people and the need to defend the integrity and decency of what is a wonderful place, two of our Members have also spoken about their need to destroy the Good Friday Agreement. For them it is evil; vile; terrible; deplorable; shameful; and stinking. I am not quoting them, but they may well have said this at some time in the past or may do so in the future.
In reply to those Members, I want to say "It is simple — just walk out." Not only could the couple here at the moment walk out, but the massed ranks as well. They choose not to do so. Instead, while ordinary, decent, innocent people suffer, they earn £39,500 per year, eulogising and chasing television cameras to make sure that they get re-elected.
If you come from the Protestant community and realise how painful it was when people were ethnically cleansed, it is even more shameful then to inflict the same on somebody else who is also wholly innocent. The choices are clear. What is going on in Larne and in other parts of Northern Ireland is either right or wrong. We must choose. Do we create a culture and an ethos where we, the tolerant society, identify the intolerant and deal with them, or do we pay mealy-mouthed lip-service to division and thus give these people justification for their actions?

Mr Roy Beggs: As one of the two Assembly Members who actually lives in the Larne borough, I hope to give some insight into what I have discovered is happening in my town. I aim to show that the impression given over the past weeks and months does not give the full picture, and I want to send a positive message about what Larne can become.
First, I want to send a clear message to the men of violence in our society. Stop. You are acting for no one but yourselves — you have no mandate. Since I was elected to the Assembly I have consistently condemned those in my constituency who have been engaged in terrorism, whatever the level and whatever the source. I will continue to do so.
However, we must all go beyond the ritual of condemnation. We must analyse what is wrong, and prescribe a remedy. I would like Members to assess what they are saying and doing, both here and in the public domain, that is constructive and that is helping to solve the problems.
The recent troubles in Larne need to be put into context, and in doing so, the perceptions created about the town by the local and national media have to be changed, for they are inaccurate. Yes, we have failings, but Larne is not the hellhole that some people describe it to be.
During the year 2000 there were 76 separate incidents described as sectarian. Of those affected, 53 people were Catholics and 35 were Protestants. The incidents ranged from pipe bombings, petrol bombings, vandalised cars, assaults on people and on homes, and threatening letters. It is clear from the figures that the attacks are coming from both sides. Yet, what are we getting in the media? Even last night, the commentary on some of the provincial media about what happened in the town was totally unbalanced. There was a tit-for-tat attack in Larne last night. A beer bottle was thrown into a Protestant home, and bricks were subsequently thrown into two Catholic homes.
All attacks are wrong. However, some aspects of the media, and some representatives, portray the attacks as coming entirely from one side. There is criminality in both communities.
UTV Internet has actually metamorphosed some of the figures. A recent statement on the web site revealed that 78 Catholic families in the town have been targeted last year. The figures have been lumped together and portrayed as coming from one side of the community. I have referred the matter to UTV, so I hope that it will correct its misreporting. Perhaps it is a case of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
I say this not to minimise any of the attacks that have happened to my Catholic constituents but to highlight the fact that there are troublemakers in both communities. If we are going to move forward together as a community, we must acknowledge criminality in both communities.
Larne has been fortunate in many ways. It does not have terrorism to the same extent as many other towns in Northern Ireland. Therefore it is ironic that the troubles that we have at present are coming to a level exceeding that in many other locations.
We must not allow bigots to destroy our community in Larne, and they are not exclusively on one side. Many of the problems have emanated from the Seacourt estate, where local Republicans have said to neighbours "We are going to turn this estate into a Nationalist ghetto or bring it to the ground." They are bringing the estate to the ground, terrorising completely innocent neighbours and those who have no involvement in terrorism or in politics.
There needs to be a realisation in the Nationalist community of the failings of these criminals, for many of these people have criminal records. Many of them continue to be sought by the courts for criminal activities. However, we have to move forward positively. In doing so, I would like to advise the House that there have been positive moves behind the scenes with groups and individuals. I welcome the fact that six Assembly Members have signed a letter, which I drafted, calling for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to utilise Peace II funding to improve community relations in Larne.

Mr Alban Maginness: I congratulate Assemblyman Roger Hutchinson on his very powerful condemnation of the violence in Larne, and I congratulate other Members also. I want to say to him, and to the other Members of the House who have spoken, particularly those on the Unionist side, that there is a very deep well of sectarianism in our society. It is a poisoned toxin that infects and damages the body politic and the fabric of our society.
I believe that places such as Larne, Ballymena, Ballymoney and Coleraine are suffering from the effects of that toxin. There is something disturbing going on in those communities. However, that disturbance and violence would not arise unless the culture of sectarianism was embedded in the social organisation of those communities.
It is not enough to condemn — right and proper as that is — those who carry out the acts of violence. We must look inside ourselves and ask if there is something that we can change about our sectarian attitudes that will remove this poison and help create a new and healthy society that respects human rights. Human rights are the bedrock of the Good Friday Agreement. We have heard about attacks on people’s homes. Those are attacks on human rights. Those are attacks on the right to liberty and security of the person. An attack on a person’s home may also constitute an attack on the right to life. Human rights are being damaged and attacked by those who perpetrate this violence.
Some Members have been talking about violence as if it were some sort of epidemic — almost something that happened as a result of some sort of inexplicable outbreak. However, we are not talking about casual sectarian violence. There may be some casual sectarian violence, but we are talking about organised sectarian violence in Larne. I pay tribute to Danny O’Connor for highlighting and being forthright about this issue.

Mr Roy Beggs: I concur with some of the Member’s comments, but he should bear in mind that a crosscommunity women’s group — perhaps relevant to himself — in the Seacourt estate was forced out of action by Republicans. It is coming from both communities.

Mr Alban Maginness: I have no doubt that there is violence on both sides in Larne. However, it must be said — and Danny O’Connor has said openly and courageously — that there is organised violence in that town and in that area. The majority of that violence has been visited upon the minority Catholic community that lives in the borough. In addition, he says that it is his belief that it is organised by the UDA or organisations associated with the UDA. I believe that, and I believe that the police have confirmed it.
I cannot understand why, in a town of 20,000 people — it is not a big town — the police cannot come to grips with that sort of organised violence. Casual violence is more difficult to eradicate. However, organised violence, which requires somebody to make pipe bombs, petrol bombs and weapons with which to attack homes, should surely be detected and suppressed by the police. Assemblyman Roger Hutchinson asked that very question himself on a radio programme. It goes to the heart of the concerns of Catholic people living in that area.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Alban Maginness: Why has there not been effective police action on this? This is not such a big nut for the police to crack. I commend those who have constructively criticised the police over their actions in Larne.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Alban Maginness: I support Danny O’Connor and Sean Neeson for highlighting this issue.

Mr David Hilditch: Like other Members who have taken part in today’s debate, I totally condemn the unsavoury incidents currently taking place in Larne. It saddens me that the severity of the situation has led to the matter being brought before the House today. It is right to condemn the attacks in Larne, as well as similar activity taking place in other areas throughout the Province.
We have before us a terrible vicious circle. Attack provokes attack; retaliation provokes retaliation, and at the end of the day, both communities are losing out. The cost to individual families is immense, with ruined lives, wrecked homes and vast medical problems which, unfortunately, will surface in the days ahead.
There is no one section of our community with a monopoly on suffering. The statistics released by the RUC that are being quoted today give the true facts on the problem. Both communities are under attack — indeed, members of the DUP have been attacked in Larne by Republicans. Loyalists too must take responsibility for their actions.
Unfortunately, what we have witnessed to date is that he who shouts loudest is the victim. That is the perception coming out of Larne. I call on all local politicians and community leaders to disregard point scoring. Let us get to grips with the situation here at the grass roots and put the heart back into Larne.
The embryo of a similar problem was beginning to emerge in Carrickfergus last year. Local civic and community leaders came together, stood their ground and headed off the problem. No one had to run to Dublin, London or elsewhere. The matter was sorted out on our own doorstep, without adding provocation to the situation.
The story in Larne is no different from that in any other place in Northern Ireland. Something that, perhaps, starts off as being a case of nuisance neighbours ruins good communities, and lack of action — particularly on the part of statutory agencies such as the Housing Executive — leaves a void that is taken up by the more sinister elements. The results are the same — a huge cost in human suffering, population displacements and, more often than not, perfectly good housing demolished owing to the increasing number of voids.
We do not want to see that in any part of Larne. Let us not allow that to happen in Larne. Let us not see events spiralling any further, as we have witnessed in interface areas in North and West Belfast and in other constituencies. We must take up the slack and tackle the problems head-on. The rule of law and order must be applied to all, irrespective of their political or religious affiliation.

Ms Jane Morrice: The time for the Adjournment debate is now up.

Mr David Ervine: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suppose it is not my job to point out to you that this dialogue was timed to take place between 5.00pm and 6.00pm, yet, despite our having been encouraged to nip our commentaries short, we find ourselves, at 5.18pm, going home. Even the capacity to give way is destroyed by the short-termism that is being foisted on us.
I realise that you, MadamDeputySpeaker, have made a decision, which I am not likely to be able to overturn, but I ask that you — along with the Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers — give some consideration to this problem. This is the second time today that this matter has been raised as a point of order in the House.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am gravely concerned. Many of us had prepared speeches containing lots of statistics which we were not able to quote. We rushed our speeches through to comply with your ruling. The situation in Larne is severe, which is the very reason I felt that this debate should not take place today. We were cut short, and things that should have been said could not be said. I am afraid that today’s debate has served no purpose whatsoever.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Standing Orders allow onehour for the Adjournment debate. We began this debate at 4.22pm, and it is now 5.19pm. We had five minutes extra because one Member withdrew. That is why we have a few minutes left over. If there are problems with this, they should be taken up with the Business Committee and the Standing Orders Committee.
Adjourned at 5.19pm.